June 22, 2008
What are the new classics?
Entertainment Weekly does a very nice job of ranking the new classics — movies, TV, etc. — from the last 25 years. From the movie list:
From the style list:
From the stage list:
Romantic gestures (these aren't numbered for some reason):
1. Pulp Fiction (1994)From the TV list:
7. Hannah and Her Sisters (1986)
10. Moulin Rouge (2001)
11. This Is Spinal Tap (1984)
12. The Matrix (1999)
13. GoodFellas (1990)
14. Crumb (1995)
15. Edward Scissorhands (1990)
16. Boogie Nights (1997)
17. Jerry Maguire (1996)
18. Do the Right Thing (1989)
19. Casino Royale (2006)
23. Memento (2001)
24. A Room With a View (1986)
32. Fight Club (1999)
33. The Breakfast Club (1985)
34. Fargo (1996)
44. The Player (1992)
77. Sid and Nancy (1986)
91. Back to the Future (1985)
1. The Simpsons, Fox, 1989-presentFrom the book list:
2 The Sopranos, HBO (1999-2007)
3 Seinfeld, NBC (1989-98)
5 Sex and the City, HBO (1998-2004)
6 Survivor, CBS (2000-present)
12 South Park, Comedy Central (1997-present)
14 The Daily Show, Comedy Central (1996-present)
17 The Office (U.K. version), BBC2 (2001-03)
18 American Idol, Fox (2002-present)
21 Roseanne, ABC (1988-97)
22 The Real World, MTV (1992-present)
28 The Larry Sanders Show, HBO (1992-98)
30 Late Show With David Letterman, CBS (1993-present)
38 Beavis and Butt-head, MTV (1993-97)
39 Six Feet Under, HBO (2001-05)
43 Late Night With Conan O'Brien, NBC (1993-present)
45 Curb Your Enthusiasm, HBO (2000-present)
49 Twin Peaks, ABC (1990-91)
55. Pee-wee's Playhouse, CBS (1986-90)
63. Mystery Science Theater 3000, Comedy Central (1989-96), Sci Fi (1997-99)
64. The Osbournes, MTV (2002-05)
69. The Colbert Report, Comedy Central (2005-present)
75. Project Runway, Bravo (2004-present)
79. The Comeback, HBO (2005)
83. Absolutely Fabulous, BBC2 (1992), BBC1 (1994-2004)
4. The Liars' Club, Mary Karr (1995)(The book list is heavily weighted toward fiction.)
5. American Pastoral, Philip Roth (1997)
7. Maus, Art Spiegelman (1986/1991)
11. Into Thin Air, Jon Krakauer (1997)
28. Naked, David Sedaris (1997)
33. The Year of Magical Thinking, Joan Didion (2005)
66. A Supposedly Fun Thing I’ll Never Do Again, David Foster Wallace (1997)
72. The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time, Mark Haddon (2003)
From the style list:
1. Madonna at the MTV Video Music Awards (1984)From the tech list:
2. Sarah Jessica Parker in the opening credits of Sex and the City (1998)
3. Michael Jackson in the ''Thriller'' video (1983)
4. Sharon Stone at the Oscars (1996)
5. Kurt Cobain and grunge style (1991)
7. Amy Winehouse's frocks, bold bras, and sky-high bouffant (2007)
13. Tom Cruise's Ray-Bans and tighty whities in Risky Business (1983)
16. Courtney Love's vintage slip dresses, Mary Janes, and home-grown dye jobs (1995)
17. The leather trenches and Neo-style shades in The Matrix (1999)
48. The goth look of Robert Smith and the Cure (1987)
3. TiVo (1999)From the video games:
4. iPod (2001)
5. YouTube (2005)
7. Digital Video Cameras for Consumers (1995)
9. Satellite-Radio Stations (2001)
1. Tetris (1985)Ha ha. Sorry, I'm old!
From the stage list:
21. Hedwig and the Angry Inch (1998)Sorry, I've seen a lot of these — the most expensive of these cultural pleasures — and didn't like them very much.
Romantic gestures (these aren't numbered for some reason):
• John Cusack blasts Peter Gabriel outside Ione Skye's window in 1989's Say Anything...Movie posters (pictured here):
• Ewan McGregor breaks into ''Your Song'' while wooing Nicole Kidman in 2001's Moulin Rouge (2001).
• After her beloved Pedro (Marco Leonardi) dies making love to her in Like Water for Chocolate, Tita (Lumi Cavazos) eats matches, literally igniting her inner flame and burning her whole ranch to the ground.
The Devil Wears PradaDeath scenes:
The 40 Year-Old Virgin
Jungle Fever
The Silence of the Lambs
• Steve Buscemi + a woodchipper + the pure white snow of 1996's Fargo = arguably the most hilarious ooky death on film.More lists at the link, but I'll stop here.
• Mel Gibson, sans intestines, bellows ''Freeeeedommmmmm!'' in Braveheart (1995).
• Warring exes Michael Douglas and Kathleen Turner fall to their doom on a chandelier in 1989's The War of the Roses.
• Jack telling Rose not to say her goodbyes before freezing to death in Titanic (1997).
• Lucy Liu losing her head to Uma Thurman's blade in Kill Bill Vol. One (2003).
Tom Brokaw is the new host of "Meet the Press" — until November.
This is good — for us and for NBC. Can you imagine if they'd given it to Olbermann or Matthews?
"The can-do, bootstrap approach embedded in the American psyche is under assault."
"Eroding it is a dour powerlessness that is chipping away at the country's sturdy conviction that destiny can be commanded with sheer courage and perseverance."
Write Alan Fram and Eileen Putman. (Via Drudge.) They summarize the evidence:
Midwestern levees are bursting. Polar bears are adrift. Gas prices are skyrocketing. Home values are abysmal. Air fares, college tuition and health care border on unaffordable. Wars without end rage in Iraq, Afghanistan and against terrorism.Polar bears are adrift. They just don't know what to do with themselves any more. Slaughtering baby seals with our bare paws, what kind of a life is that? It may nourish the body, but what about our souls? Oh, you mean they are drifting on that melting iceberg? Anyway, the point is that everything seems to be going to hell:
"It is pretty scary," said Charles Truxal, 64, a retired corporate manager in Rochester, Minn. "People are thinking things are going to get better, and they haven't been. And then you go hide in your basement because tornadoes are coming through. If you think about things, you have very little power to make it change."Thanks for the tip. IN THE COMMENTS: Paddy O. writes:
My great-great-great grandmother had six kids in Indiana when her husband and oldest son went off to fight in the Civil War. Both died, leaving her with five kids and a farm. She worked hard and they did okay. Her oldest kids grew up and moved to California in the 1870s. She followed not long after, and continued to work. “Soft,” she said in a newspaper article when she turned 100, talking about that present generation. “The world is full of weaklings.” People with heart and courage respond with heart and courage. Those that never really did like to complain about how bad things are, in order to justify their own anxiety and give fuel to their fretting.AND: Also from the comments, read this from Steve.
The NYT "public editor" Clark Hoyt concludes that Maureen Dowd "by assailing Clinton in gender-heavy terms in column after column, went over the top."
"Went over the top" is a pretty mild criticism though, don't you think? Surely, a columnist can exaggerate for comic effect and lampoon public figures. "Over the top" is almost a compliment. So it was over the top? Was it over the line?
Back to the subject at hand:
Have the balls to say she was right.
... Dowd’s columns about Clinton’s campaign were so loaded with language painting her as a 50-foot woman with a suffocating embrace, a conniving film noir dame and a victim dependent on her husband that they could easily have been listed in that Times article on sexism...That Times article? That Times article? For crying out loud! Link!!! To be fair, if you scroll to the bottom of the page, under the heading "Past Coverage," you'll see "Critics and News Executives Split Over Sexism in Clinton Coverage" — with the link I've carried over, and you can figure out that it's the same article referred to in the first paragraph of Hoyt's article. But dammit, Times, put links in the text as you refer to things.
Back to the subject at hand:
“I’ve been twisting gender stereotypes around for 24 years,” Dowd responded. She said nobody had objected to her use of similar images about men over seven presidential campaigns. She often refers to Barack Obama as “Obambi” and has said he has a “feminine” management style. But the relentless nature of her gender-laden assault on Clinton — in 28 of 44 columns since Jan. 1 — left many readers with the strong feeling that an impermissible line had been crossed, even though, as Dowd noted, she is a columnist who is paid not to be objective....Hoyt never says that Dowd went over the line, and I don't see that he's criticized her in any significant way. Nor should he! Her explanation of what she does and why it's right is dead on. Hoyt went through an appropriate "public editor" analysis in response to criticism, and he let it seem as though he was disapproving, and yet I don't see that he really was.
Politically correct is never a term one would apply to Dowd’s commentary. Her columns this year said Clinton’s “message is unapologetically emasculating,” and that she “needed to prove her masculinity” but in the end “had to fend off calamity by playing the female victim.” In one column Dowd wrote, “She may want to take a cue from the Miss America contest: make a graceful, magnanimous exit and wait in the wings.”
“From the time I began writing about politics,” Dowd said, “I have always played with gender stereotypes and mined them and twisted them to force the reader to be conscious of how differently we view the sexes.” Now, she said, “you are asking me to treat Hillary differently than I’ve treated the male candidates all these years, with kid gloves.”
Have the balls to say she was right.
Should Americans respond to Michelle Obama the way the French respond to Carla Bruni?
"He has five or six brains which are remarkably irrigated," wrote Carla Bruni, explaining her love for Nicolas Sarkozy, quoted in Maureen Dowd's column today. That kills me.
But here's what I want to talk about:
Is it really the case that the French would shrug it off if Bruni's lyrics were "God damn France" and a rant against the nonwhite French? The Obama campaign has to respond to the interpretation of things Michelle Obama has said — "for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country" — and rumors about what she is purported to have said — "whitey" — or condoned — Jeremiah Wright's "God damn America."
It makes no sense to suggest that we could just be more like the French. Imagine how the French would react if Bruni's songs had racist and anti-patriotic lines that were exactly strong as those sex and drugs lines. And if they did just smirk and tolerate it, would you think it a good example of sophistication for Americans?
And by the way, it's not good feminism to think that a President's spouse is a fluffy, silly decoration whose words don't matter. She is a human being who should be taken seriously, and she will be in a position to influence and advise the President. We should care what she thinks.
Now, we could have a Carla Bruni type First Lady, whose interests are fashion and music. That might be great fun. But Michelle Obama has not defined and presented herself that way. She is a Harvard-trained lawyer who has given long speeches on substantive issues. To respond to her the way French respond to Carla Bruni would be to insult her.
But here's what I want to talk about:
If an American first lady, or would-be first lady, described herself as a “tamer of men” and had a “man-eating” past filled with naked pictures, Mick Jagger and Eric Clapton, sultry prone CD covers, breaking up marriages, bragging that she believes in polygamy and polyandry rather than monogamy, and having a son with a married philosopher whose father she had had an affair with, it would take more than an appearance on “The View” to sweeten her image.Why aren't Americans more like the French? But, really, the complaints you hear about Michelle Obama are not about sex, drugs, and rock and roll. They're about patriotism and racism.
It’s hard to imagine the decibel level on Fox News if Michelle Obama put out a CD this summer, as Carla Bruni-Sarkozy is, with songs featuring lyrics like “I am a child/despite my 40 years/despite my 30 lovers/a child”; and this song, “Ma came”: “You are my junk/more deadly than Afghan heroin/more dangerous than Colombian white. .../My guy, I roll him up and smoke him.”
Is it really the case that the French would shrug it off if Bruni's lyrics were "God damn France" and a rant against the nonwhite French? The Obama campaign has to respond to the interpretation of things Michelle Obama has said — "for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country" — and rumors about what she is purported to have said — "whitey" — or condoned — Jeremiah Wright's "God damn America."
It makes no sense to suggest that we could just be more like the French. Imagine how the French would react if Bruni's songs had racist and anti-patriotic lines that were exactly strong as those sex and drugs lines. And if they did just smirk and tolerate it, would you think it a good example of sophistication for Americans?
And by the way, it's not good feminism to think that a President's spouse is a fluffy, silly decoration whose words don't matter. She is a human being who should be taken seriously, and she will be in a position to influence and advise the President. We should care what she thinks.
Now, we could have a Carla Bruni type First Lady, whose interests are fashion and music. That might be great fun. But Michelle Obama has not defined and presented herself that way. She is a Harvard-trained lawyer who has given long speeches on substantive issues. To respond to her the way French respond to Carla Bruni would be to insult her.
June 21, 2008
"The alarmist view that our fragile geopolitical position requires abandoning our commitment to preventing Star Chamber proceedings."
Lawprof Richard Epstein has a NYT op-ed on Boumediene:
This 5-4 decision was correct. The conservative justices in the minority were wrong to suggest that the decision constitutes reckless judicial intervention in military matters that the Constitution reserves exclusively for Congress and the president....ADDED: WaPo reports:
The defendants’ entire case would collapse if the Bush administration were prepared to offer substantial evidence of their enemy combatant status, sparing everyone unneeded uncertainty and expense. Boumediene v. Bush is not a license to allow hardened terrorists to go free. It is a rejection of the alarmist view that our fragile geopolitical position requires abandoning our commitment to preventing Star Chamber proceedings that result in arbitrary incarceration.
Senior lawyers inside and outside the Bush administration repeatedly warned the White House that it was risking judicial scrutiny of its detention policies in Guantanamo Bay if it did not pursue a more pragmatic legal strategy that considered the likely reaction of the Supreme Court. But such advice, issued periodically over the past six years, was ignored or discounted, according to current and former administration officials familiar with the debates.
"How these trousers don't fall. I have waited. Oh, my God, I'm gonna get one right now. His pants are gonna fall off."
"And it hasn't happened. It's just terrible. I've waited and waited."
The NYT fashion columnist Bill Cunningham mostly sounds like your granddad railing about these kids today.
The NYT fashion columnist Bill Cunningham mostly sounds like your granddad railing about these kids today.
Is feminism about defending women from criticism?
I certainly don't think so. The notion that it's sexist to criticize women is itself sexist. Address the criticism. If it's unfair, say why it's unfair. But let's read this argument from Mary C. Curtis:
But I'm not one of those people, so I'll say what I've always said. Women in politics are subject to attacks, as are male politicians, and they aren't going to succeed by arguing that the attacks are sexist. Get to the point and tell us why the attacks are wrong.
Michelle Obama has become an issue in the presidential campaign even though she isn't running for anything.She's going around promoting her husband and is therefore an important political actor who is part of the debate and subject to criticism.
An educated, successful lawyer, devoted wife and caring mother has been labeled "angry" and unpatriotic and snidely referred to as Barack Obama's "baby mama."Offended? I'll push back when the criticisms are bad, but not because a woman has been criticized. When a male politician has done something wrong, we don't moderate our attacks with obsequious celebration of his level of education, his professional success, and his purported adoration of his wife and kids. And even when the attack is unfounded, we aren't offended that there are attacks. We fight the attack.
Democrats, Republicans, independents, everyone should be offended.
And this black woman is wondering: Where are Obama's feminist defenders?The author informs us of her race. Why? Does that give her special moral authority?
It's not as though they're out of practice. In 1992, Hillary Clinton was deemed too assertive and not first lady material. Similar, and worse, claims were made this year. But just as you didn't have to be for Clinton to decry the sexism in the coverage of her campaign, you don't have to be an Obama supporter to defend Michelle Obama against similar treatment.I certainly agree that anyone who got righteous about Hillary Clinton and sexism must apply the same standard for Michelle Obama. If you want us to believe you were standing on principle, don't be a hypocrite.
But I'm not one of those people, so I'll say what I've always said. Women in politics are subject to attacks, as are male politicians, and they aren't going to succeed by arguing that the attacks are sexist. Get to the point and tell us why the attacks are wrong.
I've long been frustrated, as a black woman....In case you forgot, the author is black.
[I]n America, there's seldom a cost for disrespecting black women.Seldom... she didn't say never. The fact is, Americans feel much freer to disrespect white men — and this is not a disadvantage for white men. This is part of being viewed as strong and powerful. So be strong and powerful, quit whining, and fight.
June 20, 2008
"Bigger, Stronger, Faster."
Those before and after pics were taken on the same day — as demonstrated in the new documentary "Bigger Stronger Faster." It's an excellent documentary, mostly about steroid use — but also about hypocrisy, competition, and fakery.
The subtitle is "The Side Effects of Being American." Watch the trailer to get a decent idea of how that angle works:
If you want to laugh at Henry Waxman, this is your movie.
From the review by Beth Accomando:
Since [the director Christopher] Bell hangs out with people like his brothers that have no problems with using steroids, the pro-steroid camp definitely gets to have a say in the movie. So some people will probably see the film as biased in favor of steroids. Contributing to the perception of the film as pro-steroid is the fact that the people Bell does let talk about the negative side of steroid use often come off looking like idiots....Accomando interviews Bell. Excerpt:
But in the end I think Bell is not so much pro-steroids but rather eager to open up a debate about the drug...
BETH ACCOMANDO: Were you surprised by people like Congressman Waxman who seemed so ill-prepared for the interview?This made me go back and watch the old Bloggingheads segment I did with Stephen Kaus. Skaus wanted to talk about the steroid controversy, and I was just trying to be a good sport about his topic. So it's a little odd that I went to the movie. But, basically, I like documentaries and it got great reviews. I recommend it.
CHRIS BELL: It's weird because I'm not a journalist and I wasn't a documentary filmmaker when I started this journey so I was super nervous because I had never interviewed a congressman before and when I asked him why are steroids illegal and he turns to his assistant and says, "Are they illegal?" And I thought oh my god this is the guy who called the baseball hearings and he doesn't even know what he's talking about. That's really interesting to me because we really uncovered how we don't always have the facts when we are making the laws in this country. So I question in the movie why steroids became illegal in the first place. So I wanted to explore both the myths of steroids and the bad side effects of steroids and the possible positive medical applications as well.
There's a lot of interesting materials about the Bell family and the culture of male competition. Much of this was presented as "American" — as if Americans care about winning more than others or are more willing to cheat to win (or bullshit that it's not really cheating). There were a few ham-handed attempts to connect muscular sports competition to American foreign policy, but there was plenty of material about drugged-up muscle men from other countries to undercut that theory. (Like this guy.) I mean, the Michael Moore influence was definitely present, but Michael Moore can't bench press 705 pounds.
Intent on charging for access — or just clueless — the New York Times fails to link to its own wonderfully rich archive.
I was reading the obituary for Jean Delannoy, the French film director who died on Wednesday at the age of 100. I didn't remember the name, though I see he directed the Anthony Quinn/Gina Lollobrigida version of "The Hunchback of Notre Dame," which I loved when I was a teenager.
Yeah, it's not very good, but it really did have a very deep emotional impact on me. The old Charles Laughton version is so much better: But let me get to my point. I learn from the obit that Delannoy was the sort of director that the French New Wave directors were rebelling against:
Yeah, it's not very good, but it really did have a very deep emotional impact on me. The old Charles Laughton version is so much better: But let me get to my point. I learn from the obit that Delannoy was the sort of director that the French New Wave directors were rebelling against:
Mr. Delannoy had worked in the film industry for two decades when, in 1954, François Truffaut, then a 21-year-old critic for the film journal Cahiers du Cinéma, wrote his controversial article “A Certain Trend in French Film.” In the article Truffaut attacked France’s commercial cinema and its so-called tradition of quality, as exemplified by Mr. Delannoy and certain colleagues, and advocated in its place auteurism, a new, director-centered filmmaking style, which Truffaut came to embrace as a filmmaker. Established French directors, Truffaut wrote, had failed to express their personalities or espouse a worldview. He said that the worst of Jean Renoir’s movies would always be more interesting than the best of Mr. Delannoy’s. Stung, Mr. Delannoy responded by letter, calling the criticism “so low that I have never encountered anything like it in my 20 years in the profession.” He believed that a director’s job was to realize the work of the scriptwriters; Truffaut considered that attitude contemptuous of film as an art form. Jean-Luc Godard shared Truffaut’s opinion, once suggesting that when Mr. Delannoy carried a briefcase to the studio, he might as well be going to an insurance office.This is important!
Mr. Delannoy responded by writing an article for The New York Times. The film industry, he wrote, was “dying of infantilism.”Wait! He responded by writing an article for The New York Times?! Where is the link?!!! Now, I've had a little side project — which, admittedly, I've been ignoring for the last week or so — where I blog from the NYT archive for a date in the past as if I were blogging the news today. And I've struggled with the way the Times limits access to the archive for the years 1923 to 1986). Efforts to limit access to the current issue — the "TimesSelect" program — failed. But the partly closed historical archive remains. I'd love to be able to link to the old articles freely. They can't be getting much traffic. Why not let them burst out to a big audience when someone wants to talk about something, like what Jean Delannoy wrote in 1952 about the French New Wave? The Times itself should be sending us back into its archive. It's boneheaded not to link to the old article by Delannoy! So I'll have to be the one to go back and dig it out for you. It's here if you want to pay for access (or have an educational account and can get to 100 articles a month). Now, I'm reading the article, and it doesn't seem to be much of a response to Truffaut:
[T]he torture of the cinema in the world is, for the most part, due to the tightening of censorship.... The censors act in good faith, in the name of morality. But what is curious is that morality is not the same in one country as another.... All censorships are mistaken because they judge on the basis of pre-established criteria and not on the basis of intention. First and foremost, a film affects the understanding of an audience.... What the public looks for in the dimmed rooms is shocks, and emotions. Films that call upon the intelligence are rare and have only limited success....He expresses concern that the movie "Savage Triangle" will be shown in New York for adults only.
[I]f I had a boy of 14, I would prefer him to get to know some "savage boys" as the one in the film, rather than to nourish himself solely on the violence of Robin Hood with his special interpretation of justice, or the ideas he has on religion, in the person of Friar Tuck, the monk with the cudgel who supports him. The cinema is dying of infantilism. Will censorship finish the job?One reason not to link to the archive — a terrible reason — is that the old articles don't actually support the point you are citing them for! Delannoy isn't responding to Truffaut here. He's pissed off at censors (and Robin Hood).
ADDED: There is a short paragraph that appears between the discussion of Truffaut and the reference to Delannoy's old article:
Mr. Delannoy had earlier had his own complaints about the industry, partly because of censorship. “L’Éternel Retour” (“The Eternal Return”), a retelling of the Tristan and Isolde story, was condemned by the Legion of Decency in 1948. “Le Garçon Sauvage” (“The Wild Boy,” released in the United States in 1952 as “Savage Triangle”), the story of a Marseilles prostitute and her son, also ran afoul of censors.
The old article did support that paragraph. I incorrectly assumed that the new paragraph, which began "Mr. Delannoy responded by writing an article for The New York Times," referred back to the Truffaut criticism.
"Just try to imagine Mister Rogers playing the agent Ari in 'Entourage' and it all falls into place."
David Brooks explains Barack Obama. Supposedly, there are 2 sides to Barack Obama — the familiar idealistic guy and the "the promise-breaking, tough-minded Chicago pol who’d throw you under the truck for votes." Brooks gives a few examples, but the heart of the column is the turnaround on public financing:
ADDED: Here's the video of Obama justifying his decision and making it sound as though McCain is slimy for staying in the system. Here's FactCheck's analysis:
Barack Obama has worked on political reform more than any other issue.... He’s spent much of his career talking about how much he believes in public financing. In January 2007, he told Larry King that the public-financing system works. In February 2007, he challenged Republicans to limit their spending and vowed to do so along with them if he were the nominee. In February 2008, he said he would aggressively pursue spending limits. He answered a Midwest Democracy Network questionnaire by reminding everyone that he has been a longtime advocate of the public-financing system.It's fine with me. I don't like the campaign finance scheme. And I like a practical politician who adjusts to changing circumstances. It's good news that he's not an ideologue. I don't think he's going to lose the people who fell in love with him as a vision of idealism. I think he's going to gain moderate people like me who want an effective, sensible leader.
But Thursday, at the first breath of political inconvenience, Fast Eddie Obama threw public financing under the truck. In so doing, he probably dealt a death-blow to the cause of campaign-finance reform. And the only thing that changed between Thursday and when he lauded the system is that Obama’s got more money now.
ADDED: Here's the video of Obama justifying his decision and making it sound as though McCain is slimy for staying in the system. Here's FactCheck's analysis:
Obama: We face opponents who’ve become masters at gaming this broken system. John McCain’s campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs.
To say that either the McCain campaign or the RNC are "fueled" by money from lobbyists and PACs is an overstatement, to say the least. Such funds make up less than 1.7 percent of McCain's presidential campaign receipts and 1.1 percent of the RNC's income.
McCain – As of the end of April, the McCain campaign had reported receiving $655,576 from lobbyists, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That is less than seven-tenths of 1 percent of his total receipts of $96,654,783. His campaign also took in $960,990 from PACs, amounting to just under 1 percent of total receipts. The two sources combined make up less than 1.7 percent of his total.
RNC – The Republican National Committee has raised $143,298,225, of which only $135,000 has been come from lobbyists, according to the CRP. That's less than one-tenth of 1 percent. It also took in about 1 percent of its receipts from PACs, CRP said. Taken together, that's about 1.1 percent from PACs and lobbyists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
