Thanks John. Edward's has finally pulled the plug, making my overview of candidate policies a bit easier.
The key difference between the two remaining candidates health care plans is choice v. requirement. Obama's plan would provide people the choice to obtain affordable health care insurance, while Clinton's would require it - the dreaded universal health care.
Both would allow people who are happy with their current coverage to maintain their coverage. Both would also offer a new public plan, crafted in the image of Medicare, and offer the same type of plan offered to members of Congress.
To ensure that those who can not afford insurance are able to meet the requirement of insurance Clinton's plan would offer: refundable tax credits, limit premiums to a percentage of income and create a tax credit for small businesses to encourage them to cover employees.
Obama's plan touts low premiums and co-pays (without providing specifics). Obama would also offer subsidies to those who do not qualify for SCHIP or Medicare. He would require that all children are insured (a notion implicit in Clinton's universal plan) and raise the age that young adults can stay on their parents plan up to 25.
Both would eliminate insurance company discrimination based on pre-existing conditions. To achieve this Clinton says she would require that insurance companies automatically renew a person's policy if they wish to remain in that policy. It would also prohibit insurers from charging different premiums based on age, gender or occupation.
Additionally, under Clinton's plan, premiums collected by insurers must be dedicated to quality health care coverage, not excessive profits or marketing. Obama's plan offers a similar measure, but he sees it as a way to increase competition. Under his plan only insurance companies in regions that lack competition would be required to dedicate premiums.
In an effort to reign in the cost of prescription drugs, both would repeal the 2003 Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act, which forbade Medicare from negotiating directly with pharmaceutical companies. This cost saving measure is rooted in precedent, the Veterans Administration's ability to directly negotiate prescription drug prices has been seen as a success.
Both candidates want to help reduce cost by stopping overpayments to Medicare. Obama proposes eliminating payments made to Medicare's private plan alternative, called Medicare Advantage. Obama says that the government pays 12 percent more to treat patients with comparable conditions through Medicare Advantage than it does through traditional Medicare. Clinton does not specify how she would end Medicare overpayments.
Obama's plan would also include protection from the catastrophic cost associated with catastrophic illness/injury. The plan would reimburse employers a percentage of catastrophic cost that employers incur above a certain, undetermined, threshold. Clinton's plan includes no such provision.
Clinton estimates her plan will cost $110 billion a year, she plans to pay for it, in part, by rolling back the Bush tax cuts on those earning $250,000 a year. She also will limit the amount employers can exclude from taxes for health care benefits paid for those making over $250,000.
Obama estimates his plan will cost between $50 to $60 billion a year once fully implemented, and he will also fund it by rolling back the Bush tax cuts on those making $250,000 per year.
I try to inject a bit of personality and humor into my posts, but the only thing drier than health care reform is Fred Thompson on the stump. Needless to say health care, like Grandpa Fred, does not lend itself to humor.
Friday, February 1, 2008
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Look! This campaign actually has subtance: Iraq
Well, in a New Hampshire-esque curveball, it turns out there are differences in the Democratic presidential canidate's Iraq plans. Who knew?
Let's jump in.
All want some sort of large troop withdrawl, but the three plans resemble Dennis Kucinich and Mitt Romney - their different.
Edwards wants an immediate withdrawal of 40,000 to 50,000 troops, and wants to achieve a full withdrawal in 9 to 10 months. Edward's plan would leave one brigade behind to protect the embassy and a couple hundred to guard humanitarian workers.
His plan is the most aggressive. Clinton's does not provide a target troop withdrawal, but says she would direct her Department of Defense, her Secretary of Sate, and her National Security Council to come up with a plan to begin withdrawal withing 60 days. She wants to move...but she is undeceive, like a color-blind guy nervously idling away at a traffic light.
Obama would immediately begin the withdrawal of one or two brigades a month (a brigade is roughly 1,500-3,500 troops). He would continue this until all combat troops were out, he anticipates this taking until late 2009.
All want to leave some troops in the region, but again, there are differences.
Obama and Clinton do not provide specifics, but simply say that they would leave some number of troops in the country to fight Al Qaeda and protect US interests in the country. Obama's plan would remove troops from secure areas first.
Edward's plan provides troop estimates. He would leave 3,500 to 5,000 troops in Iraq to protect embassies and humanitarian workers. Edwards also wants quick reaction troops in friendly countries, in case of genocide and to stomp out Al Queda safe havens.
On a topic in which she once used as a means to attack Obama's experience, which countries in the region to negotiate with, Clinton's Iraq plan displays a classic example of politician blabber. Earlier, she criticized Obama's foreign policy inexperience because he said he would engage hostile countries like Syria. Under Clinton's plan she would gather a regional stabilization group including: key allies, other global powers and all bordering states. It is this last group that best highlights Clinton's aptitude for politician blabber (take a look at which country is placed snugly next to Iraq's Northwest boarder).
Instead of saying, oops, I guess I would also bring Syria to the table, my bad. She slipped the idea into the politically euphemistic, regional stabilization group. Umm, that's good blabber. Obama actually takes a stronger stance than Clinton. He says he would encourage Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia to steam the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq. A clenched fist, to Hillary's foam finger.
On the issue of continued training of the Iraqi security force, there are differences in all three plans.
Edwards would intensify the training, while Obama would tie our continued training to the stipulation that the Iraqi security forces do not become sectarian. Clinton has not really addressed the issue.
Under Obama and Clinton's campaigns the United Nations would be given a fairly prominent role. Obama would have the UN convene a constitutional convention. The council would address issues such an oil revenue sharing, De-Ba'thification and Federalism. He would also have the UN create a team that would investigate possible war crimes, in an effort to prevent genocide.
Clinton's plan involves a multi-billion dollar plan, lead by the UN's High Commissioner for Refugees, to address the needs of refugees. Additionally, to help curtail sectarian violence she advocates the appointment of a high level UN representative to help broker a peace deal between Iraq's three ethnic groups.
Edwards does not give the UN an explicit role in his Iraq plan.
Im sure I missed a ton, there is much more to cover. It may be incomplete, but there is a rough outline of each Democratic canidate's Iraq plan, including their, apparently elusive, differences.
Let's jump in.
All want some sort of large troop withdrawl, but the three plans resemble Dennis Kucinich and Mitt Romney - their different.
Edwards wants an immediate withdrawal of 40,000 to 50,000 troops, and wants to achieve a full withdrawal in 9 to 10 months. Edward's plan would leave one brigade behind to protect the embassy and a couple hundred to guard humanitarian workers.
His plan is the most aggressive. Clinton's does not provide a target troop withdrawal, but says she would direct her Department of Defense, her Secretary of Sate, and her National Security Council to come up with a plan to begin withdrawal withing 60 days. She wants to move...but she is undeceive, like a color-blind guy nervously idling away at a traffic light.
Obama would immediately begin the withdrawal of one or two brigades a month (a brigade is roughly 1,500-3,500 troops). He would continue this until all combat troops were out, he anticipates this taking until late 2009.
All want to leave some troops in the region, but again, there are differences.
Obama and Clinton do not provide specifics, but simply say that they would leave some number of troops in the country to fight Al Qaeda and protect US interests in the country. Obama's plan would remove troops from secure areas first.
Edward's plan provides troop estimates. He would leave 3,500 to 5,000 troops in Iraq to protect embassies and humanitarian workers. Edwards also wants quick reaction troops in friendly countries, in case of genocide and to stomp out Al Queda safe havens.
On a topic in which she once used as a means to attack Obama's experience, which countries in the region to negotiate with, Clinton's Iraq plan displays a classic example of politician blabber. Earlier, she criticized Obama's foreign policy inexperience because he said he would engage hostile countries like Syria. Under Clinton's plan she would gather a regional stabilization group including: key allies, other global powers and all bordering states. It is this last group that best highlights Clinton's aptitude for politician blabber (take a look at which country is placed snugly next to Iraq's Northwest boarder).
Instead of saying, oops, I guess I would also bring Syria to the table, my bad. She slipped the idea into the politically euphemistic, regional stabilization group. Umm, that's good blabber. Obama actually takes a stronger stance than Clinton. He says he would encourage Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia to steam the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq. A clenched fist, to Hillary's foam finger.
On the issue of continued training of the Iraqi security force, there are differences in all three plans.
Edwards would intensify the training, while Obama would tie our continued training to the stipulation that the Iraqi security forces do not become sectarian. Clinton has not really addressed the issue.
Under Obama and Clinton's campaigns the United Nations would be given a fairly prominent role. Obama would have the UN convene a constitutional convention. The council would address issues such an oil revenue sharing, De-Ba'thification and Federalism. He would also have the UN create a team that would investigate possible war crimes, in an effort to prevent genocide.
Clinton's plan involves a multi-billion dollar plan, lead by the UN's High Commissioner for Refugees, to address the needs of refugees. Additionally, to help curtail sectarian violence she advocates the appointment of a high level UN representative to help broker a peace deal between Iraq's three ethnic groups.
Edwards does not give the UN an explicit role in his Iraq plan.
Im sure I missed a ton, there is much more to cover. It may be incomplete, but there is a rough outline of each Democratic canidate's Iraq plan, including their, apparently elusive, differences.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Introducing the 'Look! This campaign actually has substance
The largely cosmetic election coverage thus far has led to a common dogma. The Republican front runners have different ideas and are varied on the issues, while the Democratic front runners are homogenous, their electability hinging on personality, not substance.
But this is lazy coverage. A very simply carousing of the candidate’s web sites and you can find many differences between Clinton, Obama and Edwards. Yes, for the sake of conversation I will still consider Edwards a front-runner.
In what I am calling 'Look! This campaign actually has substance', over the next couple posts I will take salient issues, outline the candidate’s stance on each, and highlight the differences between the three.
First up immigration.
At the risk of being called a liar, you will have to forget what I said above about differences in policy, the Democratic front-runners stances on immigration are quite similar.
Each plan stresses securing the boarders, brining people out of the shadows and protecting families, but none explains how these goals would be accomplished.
Edwards and Obama's plans mirror one another, while Clinton's is underdeveloped and gives very little insight into what she would do if elected.
All of the candidates want to strengthen the boarders, but Edwards is the only one who steps outside of ambiguities and offers some concreteness to his plan. Under his immigration reform plan, Edwards would double the number of boarder patrol agents, both Obama and Clinton say that securing the boarders is important but offer no insight into how they would accomplish such security.
Another aspect implicit in all three plans is a path to citizenship. Both Obama and Edwards want those here illegally to pay (a yet undetermined) fine, learn English and get in the back of the line and wait their turn to become US citizens. Clinton's only says that she opposes a guest worker program, which Edwards supports, but does not further elaborate.
Clinton does emphasize protecting families. In early 2007 she authored an amendment which would have allowed legal immigrants, with green cards, to bring their immediate families up from Mexico. The amendment capped the number of family members at 87,000.
Overall, the Democratic front-runners all have weak, ill-defined immigration policies high on rhetoric and low on numbers. Obama has the most developed policy, but that is not saying much-akin to being the skinniest kid at fat camp.
But this is lazy coverage. A very simply carousing of the candidate’s web sites and you can find many differences between Clinton, Obama and Edwards. Yes, for the sake of conversation I will still consider Edwards a front-runner.
In what I am calling 'Look! This campaign actually has substance', over the next couple posts I will take salient issues, outline the candidate’s stance on each, and highlight the differences between the three.
First up immigration.
At the risk of being called a liar, you will have to forget what I said above about differences in policy, the Democratic front-runners stances on immigration are quite similar.
Each plan stresses securing the boarders, brining people out of the shadows and protecting families, but none explains how these goals would be accomplished.
Edwards and Obama's plans mirror one another, while Clinton's is underdeveloped and gives very little insight into what she would do if elected.
All of the candidates want to strengthen the boarders, but Edwards is the only one who steps outside of ambiguities and offers some concreteness to his plan. Under his immigration reform plan, Edwards would double the number of boarder patrol agents, both Obama and Clinton say that securing the boarders is important but offer no insight into how they would accomplish such security.
Another aspect implicit in all three plans is a path to citizenship. Both Obama and Edwards want those here illegally to pay (a yet undetermined) fine, learn English and get in the back of the line and wait their turn to become US citizens. Clinton's only says that she opposes a guest worker program, which Edwards supports, but does not further elaborate.
Clinton does emphasize protecting families. In early 2007 she authored an amendment which would have allowed legal immigrants, with green cards, to bring their immediate families up from Mexico. The amendment capped the number of family members at 87,000.
Overall, the Democratic front-runners all have weak, ill-defined immigration policies high on rhetoric and low on numbers. Obama has the most developed policy, but that is not saying much-akin to being the skinniest kid at fat camp.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Atheism: The electorate's last hurdle
A historic election. Two once seemingly insurmountable obstacles, being a women and being an African-American, now have taken their respective positions along side being a Catholic as once unelectable qualities.
These breakthroughs are evidence that the electorate can evolve and, indeed, expand its collective tolerances. But are there limits to this evolution?
As Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama struggle for the right to be called the first, there sits a particular quality that seems light years away from even being considered electable - atheism.
There are several politicians who consider themselves atheists, but Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) is the nations first member of Congress who has openly admitted his nontheism. Stark was outed by a constituent who entered his name into a contest sponsored by the Secular Coalition for America, which was looking for the highest elected official who considered themselves to be non-believers. For their effort, the constituent received $1,000.
Despite the efforts of Secular Coalition, Stark was the only one of 535 federal politicians forthright enough to admit that he had nontheist beliefs.
This reluctance of atheists to run for public office, or for politicians to admit their atheist views, is well founded. According to a recent gallup poll, less than half of the country said they would vote for an atheist candidate, even if they deemed that the person was well qualified otherwise.
This presents an interesting dichotomy. Over 70 percent of American's agree that their should be a separation of church and state, that's good. But, those same Americans refuse to elect a president who says that as commander-and-chief their decisions will not be influenced by religious underpinnings, confusing.
It is an interesting observation. People inherently want to claim that the church and state divide is a good thing, almost reactionary. But for many there appears to be a similar divide between what they practice and what they preach.
Because democracy is a function of free citizens electing public servants, the reluctance of these citizens to vote for an atheist president, in essence, takes a wrecking ball to the wall that has always, at least in theory, stood between religion and the state, thus creating a defacto collaboration between the two.
Noted atheist and apparent supporter of all things ironic, Ron Reagan, the son of former President Ronald Reagan, sums up the reaction that any openly atheist would receive if they were to run for president:
KING: Do you ever think of running for office?
REAGAN: No...
KING: You've got a pretty good name going in.
REAGAN: It seems to work for some people.
KING: Wouldn't hurt you.
REAGAN: No, I'm not really cut out to be a politician. You know that I sometimes don't know when to shut up. That could be a drawback. I'm an atheist. So there you go right there. I can't be elected to anything because polls all say that people won't elect an atheist.
The buzz surrounding the '08 election is that Washington is broken and this is the most important election of our lifetime. This is interesting. If our political system is so broke; corruption, waste, bathroom rendezvous, could it not be deduced that a system that elects only 'religious' men might be the problem? You would be hard pressed to find a voter who would not say that change is needed, again, reactionary. But what does real change mean? If the faithful screwed it up, why shouldn't the non-faithful at least be given a legitimate chance to help fix it? Whatever it is.
These breakthroughs are evidence that the electorate can evolve and, indeed, expand its collective tolerances. But are there limits to this evolution?
As Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama struggle for the right to be called the first, there sits a particular quality that seems light years away from even being considered electable - atheism.
There are several politicians who consider themselves atheists, but Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA) is the nations first member of Congress who has openly admitted his nontheism. Stark was outed by a constituent who entered his name into a contest sponsored by the Secular Coalition for America, which was looking for the highest elected official who considered themselves to be non-believers. For their effort, the constituent received $1,000.
Despite the efforts of Secular Coalition, Stark was the only one of 535 federal politicians forthright enough to admit that he had nontheist beliefs.
This reluctance of atheists to run for public office, or for politicians to admit their atheist views, is well founded. According to a recent gallup poll, less than half of the country said they would vote for an atheist candidate, even if they deemed that the person was well qualified otherwise.
This presents an interesting dichotomy. Over 70 percent of American's agree that their should be a separation of church and state, that's good. But, those same Americans refuse to elect a president who says that as commander-and-chief their decisions will not be influenced by religious underpinnings, confusing.
It is an interesting observation. People inherently want to claim that the church and state divide is a good thing, almost reactionary. But for many there appears to be a similar divide between what they practice and what they preach.
Because democracy is a function of free citizens electing public servants, the reluctance of these citizens to vote for an atheist president, in essence, takes a wrecking ball to the wall that has always, at least in theory, stood between religion and the state, thus creating a defacto collaboration between the two.
Noted atheist and apparent supporter of all things ironic, Ron Reagan, the son of former President Ronald Reagan, sums up the reaction that any openly atheist would receive if they were to run for president:
KING: Do you ever think of running for office?
REAGAN: No...
KING: You've got a pretty good name going in.
REAGAN: It seems to work for some people.
KING: Wouldn't hurt you.
REAGAN: No, I'm not really cut out to be a politician. You know that I sometimes don't know when to shut up. That could be a drawback. I'm an atheist. So there you go right there. I can't be elected to anything because polls all say that people won't elect an atheist.
The buzz surrounding the '08 election is that Washington is broken and this is the most important election of our lifetime. This is interesting. If our political system is so broke; corruption, waste, bathroom rendezvous, could it not be deduced that a system that elects only 'religious' men might be the problem? You would be hard pressed to find a voter who would not say that change is needed, again, reactionary. But what does real change mean? If the faithful screwed it up, why shouldn't the non-faithful at least be given a legitimate chance to help fix it? Whatever it is.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
40 percent in Michigan support uncertainty over Clinton
So, evidently Hillary Clinton was not running by herself. Of the 592,798 Michigan Democrats who took part in the state's primary, 236,723 (40%) voted for uncommitted, rather than for Clinton. For an explanation of the Michigan primary and uncommitted voters go here.
This in many ways represents a defeat for Clinton. Not only did 40 percent of voters select uncommitted, essentially conceding the influence they have over their vote, but another 3,835 Michigan Democrats voted for Chris Dodd, a candidate no longer in the race.
This only furthers the argument that Clinton is unelectable. It has been stated and restated that in a general election 50 percent of voters said they would not vote for Clinton, but what does it mean when over 40 percent of Democrats wont?
Some speculate that Clinton's lead in Michigan was so large that had Obama and Edwards been on the ballot, Clinton would have still prevailed. Bill Ballenger, editor of Inside Michigan Politics, estimates that had the other two front-runners been on the ballot, 30 percent of the uncommitted vote would have gone to Obama and 10 percent to Edwards, still giving Clinton a comfortable lead.
But because no candidate, including Clinton, campaigned in the state, these numbers are speculative at best.
The 40 percent uncommitted is an impressive number, but in Clinton's defense, these numbers were probably inflated by the efforts of groups advocating the uncommitted vote and powerful state Democrats. Detroiters for Uncommitted and Michiganders for Uncommitted, both Obama backers, actively informed Michigan Democrats about their ability to vote uncommitted. And Rep. John Conyers, also an Obama supporter, urged voters to select uncommitted.
In the absence of a real Clinton campaign, these pseudo-Edwards and Obama campaigns really resonated with Michigan Democrats, thus 40 percent choose uncommitted.
However, despite this, the results in Michigan do represent a bit of egg on the face of the Clinton campaign, nothing earth shattering, but an embarrassment nonetheless.
A video put out by 'Mr. Uncommitted'
This in many ways represents a defeat for Clinton. Not only did 40 percent of voters select uncommitted, essentially conceding the influence they have over their vote, but another 3,835 Michigan Democrats voted for Chris Dodd, a candidate no longer in the race.
This only furthers the argument that Clinton is unelectable. It has been stated and restated that in a general election 50 percent of voters said they would not vote for Clinton, but what does it mean when over 40 percent of Democrats wont?
Some speculate that Clinton's lead in Michigan was so large that had Obama and Edwards been on the ballot, Clinton would have still prevailed. Bill Ballenger, editor of Inside Michigan Politics, estimates that had the other two front-runners been on the ballot, 30 percent of the uncommitted vote would have gone to Obama and 10 percent to Edwards, still giving Clinton a comfortable lead.
But because no candidate, including Clinton, campaigned in the state, these numbers are speculative at best.
The 40 percent uncommitted is an impressive number, but in Clinton's defense, these numbers were probably inflated by the efforts of groups advocating the uncommitted vote and powerful state Democrats. Detroiters for Uncommitted and Michiganders for Uncommitted, both Obama backers, actively informed Michigan Democrats about their ability to vote uncommitted. And Rep. John Conyers, also an Obama supporter, urged voters to select uncommitted.
In the absence of a real Clinton campaign, these pseudo-Edwards and Obama campaigns really resonated with Michigan Democrats, thus 40 percent choose uncommitted.
However, despite this, the results in Michigan do represent a bit of egg on the face of the Clinton campaign, nothing earth shattering, but an embarrassment nonetheless.
A video put out by 'Mr. Uncommitted'
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
A list of journalists who gave campaign cash
In July MSNBC compiled a list of journalists who donated to various political campaigns from 2004 through the first quarter of 2007. Overall, 147 reporters, editors, producers, critics and a plethora of others appeared on the list, contributing over $300,000.
Some have legitimate arguments that their contributions are justifiable. Food critics, health reporters, technology correspondents, travel columnists and other non-politics, non-news positions, do not seem as ominous when making appearances on political contribution lists.
But others are in blatant violation of journalisms code of objectivity, and they know it. When the Muskegon Chronicle's Terry Judd was confronted with questions regarding $1,900 given to the Democratic National Committee, between 2004 through 2006, and $2,000 given to John Kerry in March 2004, both under his name, he was blunt:
"You caught me," Judd said. "I guess I was just doing it on the side." Judd was a reporter and chief of the newspaper's Grand Haven bureau.
But what immediately jumps off the page is the fact that nearly 90 percent of contributors gave to candidates, organizations, or causes that favored Democratic canidates. Of the 147 listed, 132 contributed to Democrats, 13 contributed to Republicans and 2 contributed to both Democratic and Republican causes and candidates.
Although, many of those who contribute did not cover politics directly, it does give fodder to those who claim the media is a mouth piece of the left. Also of note, not one of the media members listed contributed to Independent canidates. Could this give insight into why smaller and independent canidates are often excluded from debates and find it very difficult to get any sort of press coverage?
Although, vastly outnumbered by journalists giving to Democrats, Republican media members gave more per capita. The average given to Republican canidates and causes was $7,850, while that number is $1,430.72 on the Democratic side.
Here is a breakdown of major broadcast and print organizations. Go here for the complete findings of the investigation.
On the broadcast side:
ABC: 3 contributors; $7,350
CBS: 5 contributors; $7,000
CNN: 1 contributor; $500
Fox News/affiliates: 4 contributors; $8,850
MSNBC: 1 contributor; $4,200
On the print side:
The Wall Street Journal: 3 contributors; $2,300
The New York Times: 3 contributors; $9,185
Los Angeles Times: 4 contributors; $5,250
New York Daily News: 2 contributors; $2,404
The Washington Post: 1 contribution; $250
The Chicago Trbune: 2 contributors; $2,200
Some have legitimate arguments that their contributions are justifiable. Food critics, health reporters, technology correspondents, travel columnists and other non-politics, non-news positions, do not seem as ominous when making appearances on political contribution lists.
But others are in blatant violation of journalisms code of objectivity, and they know it. When the Muskegon Chronicle's Terry Judd was confronted with questions regarding $1,900 given to the Democratic National Committee, between 2004 through 2006, and $2,000 given to John Kerry in March 2004, both under his name, he was blunt:
"You caught me," Judd said. "I guess I was just doing it on the side." Judd was a reporter and chief of the newspaper's Grand Haven bureau.
But what immediately jumps off the page is the fact that nearly 90 percent of contributors gave to candidates, organizations, or causes that favored Democratic canidates. Of the 147 listed, 132 contributed to Democrats, 13 contributed to Republicans and 2 contributed to both Democratic and Republican causes and candidates.
Although, many of those who contribute did not cover politics directly, it does give fodder to those who claim the media is a mouth piece of the left. Also of note, not one of the media members listed contributed to Independent canidates. Could this give insight into why smaller and independent canidates are often excluded from debates and find it very difficult to get any sort of press coverage?
Although, vastly outnumbered by journalists giving to Democrats, Republican media members gave more per capita. The average given to Republican canidates and causes was $7,850, while that number is $1,430.72 on the Democratic side.
Here is a breakdown of major broadcast and print organizations. Go here for the complete findings of the investigation.
On the broadcast side:
ABC: 3 contributors; $7,350
CBS: 5 contributors; $7,000
CNN: 1 contributor; $500
Fox News/affiliates: 4 contributors; $8,850
MSNBC: 1 contributor; $4,200
On the print side:
The Wall Street Journal: 3 contributors; $2,300
The New York Times: 3 contributors; $9,185
Los Angeles Times: 4 contributors; $5,250
New York Daily News: 2 contributors; $2,404
The Washington Post: 1 contribution; $250
The Chicago Trbune: 2 contributors; $2,200
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)