These Anti-Vaxxers Are Funding ‘Ready for Hillary’ - DailyBeast

[WillyT]

These Anti-Vaxxers Are Funding ‘Ready for Hillary’
Albert and Claire Dwoskin are liberal Democratic heavyweights and important Hillary donors, but now their vaccination skepticism is bringing them unwanted notice.
Jackie Kucinich - DailyBeast
02.04.15

<snip>

Albert Dwoskin and his wife, Claire, have been heavy hitters in Democratic politics for decades, boasting fundraisers with access to top Democratic leaders—even the Clintons.

Bill Clinton has spoken at their mansion in McLean, Virginia twice.

Albert, a real estate developer, donated more than $10,000 to Ready for Hillary—Clinton’s campaign in waiting—in 2013. That’s on top of the thousands of dollars both Clintons have received from the pair since the 1990s.

But it’s Albert and Claire Dwoskin’s other hobby that is under scrutiny now. The Dwoskins fund a multimillion-dollar family foundation that has publicly tied the use of vaccines to a rise in autism, and is dedicated to addressing “gaps in the knowledge about the biological and genetic risk factors for vaccine induced brain and immune dysfunction.”

In other words, they’re vaccination skeptics. And the foundation is just one in a series of anti-vaxx projects that the wealthy couple bankrolls.

<snip>

More: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/02/04/anti-vaxxers-funding-ready-for-hillary.html#

[NuclearDem]

1. Incoming perfect shitstorm!

[MADem]

8. Naaah. They're donors, but they aren't real "heavy hitters."

Their table won't be by the kitchen, but they won't be "up front" either.

This is an attempt to pot stir. We know how HRC feels about the topic, these people are going to have to adjust or suck it up--they can take their money and go home if they don't like her position, and big picture, It Won't Matter. She's not going to change her mind to suit these fools.

[DearAbby]

2. Please do not politicize public health.

Information and sun light. Let's stop the madness.

[JaneyVee]

3. And Hillary's response:

https://mobile.twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/562456798020386816

[HappyMe]

4. Oh great.

Politicize public health! What could possibly go wrong?
I wonder how Clinton's tweet the other day squares with these fools.

[olddots]

5. I ask this guestion once again

If you're so rich why aren't you smart ? its an old joke where someone asks "if you're so smart why aren't you rich " things have turned around so the rich can maintain thier ipnorance .

[Sheepshank]

6. is this all about single issue voters?

they are stupid imho.

Otherwise I don't understand the purpose of the OP except to grasp at straws with which to bash HC.

Fail.

[Maedhros]

7. I do not want Hillary to be President,

but this is just irrelevant. Unless there is some indication that these people are pushing Hillary to make anti-vaccination policy part of her platform, I don't see how this plays other than a smear.

[WillyT]

12. I Don't Either...

and I didn't write it.

But here's the thing...

Right now it's one of the headline stories on the Daily Beast, and a LOT of people are gonna read it.

And... if I were for Hillary...

I'd want to know about it.

That's how one defends against a charge... by knowing what the charge is.

[zappaman]

9. Here's what Clinton had to say

The science is clear: The earth is round, the sky is blue, and #vaccineswork. Let's protect all our kids. #GrandmothersKnowBest

You better believe it!

[whatchamacallit]

18. "The science is clear: The earth is round, the sky is blue, and vaccines work and

I'll take money from anyone"

[zappaman]

21. I don't see that quote.

Where did she say it?

[geek tragedy]

29. Man, you're really desperate to find a reason to justify Hillary Hate. You're embarrassing yourself,

[whatchamacallit]

32. She's a tool

What's embarrassing is that we've reached a place where people in both parties think it's fine that we're forced to go to the dynastic well for our presidents. Another Clinton, another Bush, seriously? This shit is seriously broken.

[geek tragedy]

33. okay, so this isn't about the donors it's just that you think Clinton sucks horribly and

will latch onto any pretext, no matter how flimsy or tangential, to bash her.

kthxbai

last word is yours

[whatchamacallit]

34. Try as you will to reduce it to irrational hatred

it's not. My opinion is based on a view of her positions, record, associations... Beyond the fact that she's a democrat, I don't find her qualified. Sorry.

[geek tragedy]

35. whatever, if you were shown Warren or Sanders donors who were ant-vax you wouldn't give a shit

or complain about a phony double standard w/r/t Republican quacks like Rand Paul.

But, because it's Hillary of course then it's somehow a big deal and probative of something, but you can't tell what that something is.

[whatchamacallit]

36. See, this is where you got it all wrong

I don't give a shit about a few of Hillary's donors being antivax either. My original comment was addressing the hypocrisy of a sudden interest in decorum. The rest was your invention.

[geek tragedy]

37. and you simply can't process the difference between (a) criticizing

Paul and Christie for saying and doing things that undermine public health, and (b) trying to use public health concerns as a flimsy pretext to attack someone who has exactly the right position on those concerns?

[whatchamacallit]

38. Do you think Koch donations are noteworthy?

... probably not...

[geek tragedy]

40. How much money has Hillary taken from the Koch brothers?

As much as Glenn Greenwald has?

[whatchamacallit]

41. Here's the difference between us

Although I like Greenwald, I think it's an appropriate avenue of inquiry.

[SidDithers]

49. That ship sailed a long time ago...nt

Sid

[Ykcutnek]

45. If I ran for office, I would take money from anyone.

And wouldn't expect any different of my opponent.

Attacking politicians for the personal views of their donors has always been bullshit.

The public outcry for campaigns to return $500 from someone who said something bad in 1978 makes politics suck.

[dilby]

10. So, there are tons of Anti-science GMO's are bad for you people who will donate to her as well.

What is the difference? Just because someone is anti science when it comes to vaccines, GMO or even the whole Organic is better for you bullshit movement, it doesn't mean you can't take their money.

[whatchamacallit]

11. "Please don't politicize public health" unless

you're doing it with Rand Paul and Chris Christie... Lol DU...

[msongs]

14. paul and christie are stating their vaccine beliefs and politicizing themselves nt

[whatchamacallit]

16. So donor positions and affiliations are no longer probative?

Or is that just for one party?

[geek tragedy]

23. No, nut-picking amongst donors is not probative. Maybe if you could show

that Hillary's donors are mostly crazy-ass anti-vaxxers, you'd have half a point.

But you don't. This is one couple, and Clinton is on the record with a position opposing theirs.

You've stooped to defending Christie and Paul in this thread. Stop embarrassing yourself.

[geek tragedy]

17. Paul and Christie politicized it by pandering to anti-vaxxers and making tremendously

irresponsible statements.

Clinton has the right position on this, according to every medical professional of any credibility.

[whatchamacallit]

19. I see...

The rule is it's only cool to politicize if you hold the "wrong" belief. Thank for clearing that up.

[geek tragedy]

22. So you're whining that DUers are criticizing Republicans for saying false and crazy and

dangerous things, while not criticizing Clinton for saying the sane, accurate, and responsible thing?

it's not 'politicizing' to hold public figures accountable for spreading toxic, dangerous, insane bullshit that could harm public health.

[whatchamacallit]

24. No

I'm saying it's all fair game, their positions and her donations. I'm not the the one suddenly caring about political decorum.

[geek tragedy]

25. Okay. She took some money from two people who hold one position that is incorrect, with

which Clinton very publicly disagrees.

Knock yourself out with that scandal.

[whatchamacallit]

27. Not a scandal

but it's public information that is as appropriate to air as Paul's and Christie's positions.

[geek tragedy]

28. It's fine to air it, but it's not nearly as consequential, or meaningful.

it's just noise.

Just fodder for the knee-jerk Hillary Haters.

[whatchamacallit]

30. You are welcome to your opinion n/t

[geek tragedy]

31. and you are welcome to hate on Hillary for whatever trivial reasons you want to.

Freedom!

[WillyT]

51. Yeah... And Attacking Political Donors, Is A "Cheap Shot"...

Or so I've been informed...

So I guess we can't talk about Sheldon Adelson, the Koch Brothers, or the dozens of Hedge Fund Managers and other 1%ers that choose our politicians for us?

Who knew ???

[Agnosticsherbet]

13. Hillary Clinton: The earth is round and vaccines work

Hillary Clinton: The earth is round and vaccines work
Hillary Rodham Clinton tweeted her support for vaccinations on Monday night, wading into a debate that moved to the front of the 2016 presidential campaign with comments from Chris Christie and Rand Paul.

Clinton, the former secretary of State and a likely Democratic candidate, came down on the side of doctors and scientists who believe in vaccinating children against diseases such as measles.

[Divernan]

43. HRC's glib tweet in support is NOT a legal mandate.

"Let's protect all our kids" is a feel good phrase. That is a far, far cry from defining failure to vaccinate kids as child abuse, or prohibiting unvaccinated kids or adults from public transportation, public schools, etc.

[Cali_Democrat]

46. So you think Hillary wasn't detailed enough in her defense of vaccinations

It was just a glib tweet....

So what did Warren and Sanders say recently say about the need to vaccinate children?

[Divernan]

50. She offered NO specific position on the issue-leaving typical Clinton wiggle room.

It's like any politician saying he or she is in favor of free speech, or motherhood, or apple pie. The devil is in the details.

It is unprecedented for our government, federal, state or local, to mandate medical treatment for children or adults, other than on a case by case basis. Traditionally, except in an emergency situation, parental consent is required in order to perform medical procedures on children, including adolescents. Courts throughout the world recognize that parents have rights but additionally recognize that these rights are not absolute and exist only to promote the welfare of children.

Well known international exceptions would be North Korea's current regime and Hitler's Nazi government, which arbitrarily euthanized or sterilized adults or children with physical or mental disabilities, without giving relatives or parents any hearings in a court of law. Even China, with its one child policy did not forcibly impose abortions or sterilizations, i.e., medical treatment without a patient's consent.

The One-Child Policy restricted the majority of Chinese families to one child each. The consequences of having a child without a birth permit varied by province, with fines reaching as high as several times the average annual income.

To enforce the One-Child Policy, the Chinese government used a quota reward system for Planning Officials who carried out the birth control policies. If they did not meet these quotas, they were either punished or lost the opportunity to earn promotions.

http://www.allgirlsallowed.org/one-child-policy

The U.S. has also had an abhorrent policy on forced sterilization, i.e, forced medical treatment -

1907-Indiana becomes the first state in the country to successfully pass a mandatory forced sterilization law, in this case impacting the "feebleminded" (mentally handicapped).
1909-California and Washington pass mandatory sterilization laws.
1922-Harry Hamilton Laughlin, director of the Eugenics Research Office, proposes a federal mandatory sterilization law. Like Lincecum's proposal, it never really goes anywhere.
1927-In Buck v. Bell, the U.S. Supreme Court rules (8-1) that laws mandating the sterilization of the mentally handicapped do not violate the Constitution. Writing for the majority, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes makes an explicitly eugenic argument:

It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.

1936-Nazi propaganda defends Germany's forced sterilization program by citing the United States as an ally in the eugenic movement, and its laws as proof of its status as same. World War II, and the atrocities committed by the Nazi government, would rapidly change U.S. attitudes towards eugenics.

1942-In Skinner v. Oklahoma, the U.S. Supreme Court rules unanimously against an Oklahoma law targeting some felons for sterilization (the plaintiff, Jack Skinner, was a chicken thief) while excluding white-collar criminals. The majority opinion, written by Justice William O. Douglas, rejects the broad eugenic mandate previously outlined in Buck v. Bell (1927):

Strict scrutiny of the classification which a State makes in a sterilization law is essential, lest unwittingly, or otherwise, invidious discriminations are made against groups or types of individuals in violation of the constitutional guaranty of just and equal laws.

1970-The Nixon administration dramatically increases Medicaid-funded sterilization of low-income Americans, primarily Americans of color. While these sterilizations are voluntary as a matter of policy, anecdotal evidence later suggests that they are often involuntary as a matter of practice as patients are often misinformed, or left uninformed, regarding the nature of the procedures that they have agreed to undergo.

1979-A survey conducted by Family Planning Perspectives finds that approximately 70% of American hospitals fail to adequately follow U.S. Department of Health and Human Services guidelines regarding informed consent in cases of sterilization.

1981-Oregon performs the last legal forced sterilization in U.S. history.
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/gendersexuality/tp/Forced-Sterilization-History.htm

True, our state governments have authorized forced sterilizations and lobotomies (Rosemary Kennedy), and even pulling the plug. But these have always been case-by-case decisions.

I personally am in favor of vaccinations for children, but as a lawyer I clearly see that this is an extremely delicate & complex legal issue. Hillary's folksy tweet is reminiscent of her phony black dialect - she's talking down to people and she's too emotionally tone deaf to realize it.

Feb 10, 2008 · Hillary Clinton speaking in a black church in a much different accent and dialect than normal. https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=Hillary+Clinton+black+accent&ei=UTF-8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001

And the thing is, and what, as a lawyer myself, really offends me about Clinton's cutsey, insultingly simplistic little grandma tweet, is that she is a lawyer and is completely aware of the legal complexities. So she wants to be hip/au currant and tweet? Great, but this is not the topic for such shallow treatment.

[Agnosticsherbet]

48. Her support of vaccination is all that is necessary at the moment.

It is clear. It is unambiguous.

[brooklynite]

15. I wouldn't assume you couldn't find a Warren or Sanders supporters among the anti-vaxxers

[HappyMe]

42. The anti-vaxxers know no particular party or candidate.

Equal opportunity goofiness.

[LanternWaste]

20. Though I've no idea yet who I'll vote for in the primaries, posts such as this do tend to illustrate

Though I've no idea yet who I'll vote for in the primaries, posts such as this do tend to illustrate the foolish and irrational lengths one will go to to pretend an agenda exists exists where none in fact, do.

I'd guess that after all is said and done, posts as this effectively advertise our own character much more effectively than the intended target, as Alf Landon once found to his regret.

[Bluenorthwest]

26. Politicizing public health issues reminds me of Ronald Reagan and the Republicans of his era

and the bigoted, agenda driven policy of doing nothing at all about the worst viral threat of our lifetime.

[MineralMan]

39. So, what does Hillary Clinton have to say about the vaccination issue?

Her opinion clearly isn't aligned with these donors on that subject. So, what's the point of mentioning it? I suppose we're going to be in for a lot of opposition research on Hillary Clinton, and not just from the right. I have no doubt that there are many donors who can be turned up who support Clinton, but who hold views different from hers on specific issues.

Are we going to hear about each one of those? Is the attempt to keep Clinton from getting the Democratic nomination going to dig into every association she has or has had? Will we be hearing about every donor or supporter who holds a view we don't agree with, while ignoring Hillary Clinton's own positions on those issues at the same time?

I hope not. I fear, though, that we are just starting to hear this sort of thing, as people dig ever deeper for ammunition to use against her.

[Ykcutnek]

44. Attacking politicians for taking donations from anyone has always been a cheap shot.

If I were running for office, I'd take dollars from anyone who wanted to send them.

I wouldn't vet each and every donor, nor would I expect my competition to vet each and every donor.

If they called me up and asked me to support legislation naming a national holiday in honor Timothy McVeigh, I'd kindly tell them no and if they didn't want to send moola next time then that would be their prerogative.

[AtomicKitten]

47. Meh.

I don't care about this. People including ignoramuses are entitled to donate to whomever they wish.