Charrrr-lie…Come Out, Come Out, Wherever You Are…
El Somnambulo’s article on the Caesar Rodney Institute, while answering many of the questions he had going in, have raised several more.
‘Bulo’s favorite Geezer wrote:
If all these people being Republicans were no big deal, Republicans wouldn’t be all worked up over El Som pointing that out, would they?
While The Beast Who Slumbers is indeed bemused by the outraged response, ‘bulo is more interested in the Dog That Hasn’t Barked, aka The Dog the Lapdogs Won’t Mention By Name, aka Charles Lamotte Irenee Eleuthere Bouvier de Flanders Copeland.
If the issues surrounding CRI were merely that (a) it misrepresents itself as a mainstream organization full of media go-to-guys; and (b) rather than a ‘center-right’ organization, or its later characterization as a ‘conservative-leaning’ think tank, it’s a wild-eyed free-market anti-regulatory organization, then the purpose of the story would be to sound a cautionary note to the media to be more diligent when presenting spokespersons without placing their bias into context.
However, any significant involvement by party leader and frequent Republican candidate Copeland would place this into a far more serious context, at least for ‘bulo. If one examines the composition of the staff and the Board of Directors assuming significant involvement by Mr. Transparency himself, it would be difficult not to wonder whether this purported think tank is, in fact, merely a vehicle to enable Copeland to keep his once-and-future campaign team on generous retainer, enable them to do his opposition research through this supposed non-partisan think tank vehicle (remember, folks, they hired investigative reporter Lee Williams), and enable the board members to serve to amplify Copeland’s message.
Before the usual suspects blast this theory as being outrageous, please remember that El Somnambulo laid out an awful lot of Copeland ties to CRI, and yesterday asked Copeland the following plus made him a generous offer:
So, with Copeland’s fingerprints all over CRI, El Somnambulo has these questions for Charles Copeland: In what capacity, if any, are you involved with the Caesar Rodney Institute? Are you supporting CRI in any financial capacity and, if so, to what extent? What role did you play, and do you continue to play, in the choice of staff and/or board positions for the CRI? If you are involved in CRI, why have you chosen not to provide the same transparency to your role as you demand of state government, for example?
El Somnambulo offers Senor Copeland as much space as he needs here to answer said questions and to expound on his vision (if, indeed, it is his vision) for CRI. The only caveat is that he must answer the questions first in order to be afforded the opportunity to expound.
Does this offer strike any of the would-be outraged as unfair? Copeland can take all the time he wants, here, on Delaware Liberal, to talk about CRI and, if he wants to, anything else he’d like to talk about. All he has to do is to answer the questions.
Finally, ‘bulo was nonplussed by this quote from Dave Burris, heretofore the ‘go-to-guy’ on defending CRI and fecklessly questioning the veracity of ‘bulo’s reporting:
Sorry I wasn’t clear: It’s none of your business where they get their money. (I don’t know either.) When they begin using tax dollars, then you can ask for transparency.
The Beast Who Slumbers will not call El Burrito Junior a liar. He just finds it so hard to believe that a guy who seemingly has chapter and verse defending CRI at his fingertips for instantaneous responses doesn’t know…(‘Bulo. Let. It. Go.)
But if Delaware’s leading Republican official this side of Mike Castle is funding this seeming stalking-horse with an eye on his political future, ‘bulo believes it’s both the public’s business and perhaps even the IRS’ business.
So, ‘bulo calls on Charlie Copeland to tell his surrogates to step down and to come out to answer what ‘bulo believes to be legitimate questions.
Charlie, transparency will set us all free.
Your Amigo on Behalf of Openness,
El Somnambulo
Tags: Charlie Copeland
Have you reached out, beyond the blogosphere to ask him your questions yet? You know as well as I do you won’t get answers here and I believe that is a small part of the intended overall formula.
Dude…beer summit. beer.beer.beer.beer.beer.beer.beer.beer.beer.beer.beer.beer.beer.beer.beer.beer.beer.beer.beer.beer.beer.beer.beer.beer.beer.beer.beer.beer.
Great work. The only thing missing now is a “Who me?” statement from Copeland in the News Journal CRI story which will relate the CRI story as if dictated to them by the CRI brain trust while it pretends that DelawareLIberal.net does not exist.
Of course, also still missing is the “transparency” the CRI is so into.
Actually, Smitty, answers are what ‘bulo seeks. Specific answers to the questions he asked. Either here or anywhere else. The rapid responses by Copeland’s supporters suggest to ‘bulo that word of these threads has reached Greenville , so reaching out is not necesssary.
BTW, ‘bulo could be wrong, but he suspects that Copeland may be more of a wine guy. Which is just fine with the Oenophile Who Tipples.
Wine, maybe, but in my experience, summits are far more productive in a denim-wearing world (pants, not shirts, thank you) and rolled up sleeves of a collared-shirt. In other words, beer.beer.beer.beer.beer.beer.beer.beer.beer.beer.beer.beer.beer.beer.
‘Bulo no longer drinks with anyone (OK, maybe his wife) shirtless.
Summit? Charlie/CRI’s conflict isn’t with El Som; it’s with the people of Delaware.
Hopefully if El Som gets within glass-clinking range of Charlie or Garrett, it will be to ask for a confirmation or denial of the storyline reported here this week.
Charles Lamotte Irenee Eleuthere Bouvier de Flanders Copeland.
is that really his name…
Man, when I converted to Islam with my boy Louie I thought I picked a long name!
will this rsmitty guy be at the charity event?
Shorter Burris would have been, “Judge CRI by its work,” which is fair enough.
The question raised here — and one ignored by DB — is what Lee Williams is on board for. There are people at the News Journal who specialize in combing through government checkbooks, looking up documents, etc. Lee Williams does some of that, but his specialty seems to be interviewing whistle-blowers, not slogging through paperwork. WTF, CRI?
RSmitty, Charlie blogs, we blog and CRI blogs. Why can’t Charlie answer in the blogosphere?
Charlie’s blog is part of his shadow campaign. When he runs, he will take a cue from Burris and delete his blog with all his insane extremist comments, and the News Journal will report that Charlie published “a well-regarded conservative blog.”
GREAT idea, Nemski. Let him respond to our specific questions on his own site, where he’s more at home. DL will provide links and do everything we can to up ‘hits’ to his site. Because Charlie Copeland’s responses deserve to be heard, and DL is determined that as many people as possible hear those responses.
Of course, he could also just go on the radio. Anyone know anyone from WDEL? Maybe they could invite him on…
will this rsmitty guy be at the charity event?
I feel like a charity!
No, I can’t make it to this one. If I could, then I would, without question. One, it’s a great cause, and two, partisanship has absolutely no place in an event like that. Oh, third point, which is more of a nice-to-have, despite what partisan howlers bark, there is nothing wrong with attending a social event of differing ideologies, so long as the invite was open, as is this one. Isolationist attitudes fosters extremism, whereas the opposite is full of opportunities. Even if you come away in as much disagreement as you went in, chances are good that you will have gained some mutual understanding which is always constructive.
RSmitty
-(self-appointed) DE Blogosphere Ombudsman
Why can’t Charlie answer in the blogosphere?
It’s not productive. Regardless of what they answer, if you (generic “you,” not you-specific) don’t like it, then it’s never good enough. There is a lot that printed-text can’t convey, especially in a need-it-now, short-attention-span (I’m guilty, too) environment such as the blogosphere.
Look, I’m not trying to defend anyone here, I just see an opportunity for even more gains in the blogosphere.
Let me see if I have this right: CRI stands for transparency, but it does so without being transparent itself, because the law doesn’t require it to. What a noble example it sets.
Okay. I’ll accept Charlie’s “Who me?” statement in the News Journal’s upcoming “nothing to see here folks, move along now” story as proof that everything El Som has laid out here is 100% true.
Deal?
C. Copeland’s
R. Republican
I. Insiders
Sorry, Smitty, that’s utter BS. By that standard, he can’t answer questions anywhere. Not even on his own blog. Which possibly is his intent.
In fact, if the benchmark is the ‘need-it-now, short-attention-span (I’m guilty, too) environment such as the blogosphere’, El Somnambulo would argue that there is less of a sound bite mentality here than in other media environments. El Somnambulo enjoys writing here precisely b/c of the opportunity to stretch out.
But, just so he’s clear. El Somnambulo doesn’t care WHERE he responds to these questions. In fact, it his hope that at least other media outlets, those that actually pay reporters and newsreaders to report news, dig up these facts.
Because, without some media pressure to seek answers to what ‘bulo believes to be legitimate and newsworthy questions, Copeland and others who may be in support of this organization will succeed in quelling openness and transparency.
And, if any of the legitimate journalists who read this blog (and ‘bulo knows that there are least a few) believe that ‘bulo is off-base in arguing that these issues are newsworthy, please explain why. El Somnambulo has neither the resources, the institutional memory of a media outlet, nor the experience to be an investigative journalist. He CAN, however ferret out information that he believes is important, and ask questions. He is always dependent on the kindness of journalistic strangers to follow up, or on the integrity of public figures to answer questions posed to them.
Please, Charlie, at least answer somewhere. Please? ‘Bulo has a very fine artisanal Pinot from Sonoma, a REAL pinot, Charlie, not one of those unsubtle fruit bombs that give the varietal a bad name. If bribing you with wine is what it’ll take, just e-mail ‘bulo, and his guy will give your guy the Pinot if your guy gives his guy the answers. Please have your guy call his guy.
I don’t buy that answering in the blogosphere is not productive. There’s lots of back and forth between bloggers with questions/comments/ideas on each others’ work all of the time and lots of it is plenty civilized. It doesn’t matter much whether we like the answers or no in person or in writing — it is not as though we would not talk about what didn’t make sense to us from a in person meeting, but we would go to town on what is written. The biggest difference is what is clearly on the record — if you write it, it is there for all to see. Discussing a meeting basically gives both parties more opportunity for the usual he say/she say. Especially if you have a party highly motivated to not be too clear on the record. Or so it looks like to me.
Amish wrote:
C. Copeland’s
R. Republican
I. Insiders
LOVE! it.
The only problem with Charlie responding on his blog is that we might have to read it.
nemski just made my point, jest or not.
If he doesn’t respond here, but on his own blog, he’d be accused of evading you. If he responded here, how many would truly get past the second line before lobbing grenades at his response?
That’s why I don’t think it’s productive.
I hear Charlie has a group of Ninjas on retainer. I ain’t meeting with him.
Smitty: ‘Bulo and Nemski both suggested that Copeland post on his own blog, and that we’d link to it. Scroll up a few comments, and it’s right there. You’re setting up presumable ‘worst-case scenarios’, some of which have already been dealt with. ‘What happens if’ stuff. If what, if some people are mean to Copeland? That would be a reason to refuse to answer these questions in any forum? This kind of excuse-making ill-suits you, and underestimates Copeland’s ability to directly communicate with people.
Really, I am not trying to make excuses, I am being genuine with what I say. I see your point, ‘bulo, but I think I get stuck on ‘worst-case’ because there is already precedent!
Regardless, I hope he/they does/do answer. It’s worth it to know, rather than be left guessing with one’s own vices.
Charlie Copeland should DEFINITELY be forced to produce his birth certificate, too. And then you can lead him in the pledge. And then he should have to prove that he wasn’t behind 9/11. If he can’t do all of those things, then he’s definitely behind this think tank.
You people sound as bad as See-rah Pee-lin.
Why I think that this series was important –if not award-winning — is that most recently the CRI published Republican talking points from the conservative think tank owned by big health insurance.
They are doing pass along tankiness that isn’t “just conservative”..it is extremely political. And we should know who is paying into this home-grown propaganda machiner.
I caught something in an email that mentioned that SURJ ( a good government non-profut Copeland recently headed up ) is doing some kind of conference with CRI this month. (I didn’t keep in on hand so no details ).
Is CRI getting SURJ money? Just wondering?
You folks dump on CRI as a GOP stooge and then you say the GOP doesn’t matter but then you focus again on CRI.
Now I know why you support the Public Option, some mental health issues are evident and you need some taxpayer health care.
I will support Copeland in this way. He doesn’t tell you how to run your blog or when to answer why do you feel compelled to tell him what you what to do?
Mike Protack
Put the shoe on the other foot: How loud would the Burris crowd be screeching if a liberal equivalent were out there with, say, under-the-surface union funding? I think we all know the answer to that one.