http://www.newshounds.us/2007/05/30/finished_with_odonnell_oreilly_attacks_edwards.php

Last night Bill Orally made a vicious attack on John Edwards.  Mr. Edwards is the one presidential candidate who persists to speak out on class issues with his "two Americas" theme.

John Edwards made millions upon millions of dollars as a trial attorney.  He lives in a palace.  It's not a big house.  It's not a mansion.  It's a palace, no better word for that spread. 

We need more politicians to speak up about the economic disparity that is plaguing the United States.  I think it is a bigger threat to our national security, broadly speaking, than terrorism is. 

However, when I see a guy like Edwards living like a "sultan" (to steal Billo's term) and pontificating on poverty at that same time, I quake inside. I have the same reaction to Bruce Springsteen singing about "the ghost of old Tom Joad."  I like the message.  The messenger makes me rather uneasy.

I thought it over:

1. Thanks to our campaign finance structure, you can't compete if you're not loaded.
2. Would I like Edwards better if he talked like Rush Limbaugh? (I got mine, so f---you!)
3. If Edwards gave all his wealth to the poor and lived like a mendicant friar, It would not do a thing for systemic poverty.
4. Edwards did come from lower middle class beginnings.  He knows economic worry first hand--though he's doing OK now!


I still support him.  His message is too important to dismiss even if it's easy for detractors to call him a hypocrite.

Newshounds points to Billo's lavish lifestyle as if to suggest Billo is the hypocrite for dissing Edwards.  I disagree.  Billo says capitalism is inherently unfair and we will always have poverty.  Billo does not believe in the redistribution of wealth, though the rich getting richer at the expense of the poor is OK with him!

I suspect the "trailer park" is not exactly "across the street," and that Billo's stooges chose only the residents who said they didn't like Edwards to use in the Factor segment. 

Edwards is not even close to Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination, and yet the vitriol against Edwards from right-wing commentators (including that snarky marshmallow of a has-been comic, Dennis Miller) is already past boiling point. 

I believe this is because Edwards is speaking up about economic disparity.  The fact that Edwards is himself super-rich is simply the best way to attack the man.

Thoughts?

???

Yes, John Edwards is rich beyond believe, but at least he hasn't said F*ck the poor.  He does believe that America needs Universal Health Care and quite a number of  programs to benefit the poor.  He one of the most socially and economically aware people I've seen come in a long time.  Heck he probably does know the price of a loaf of bread.

Yes, John Edwards is rich beyond believe, but at least he hasn't said F*ck the poor.  He does believe that America needs Universal Health Care and quite a number of  programs to benefit the poor.  He one of the most socially and economically aware people I've seen come in a long time.  Heck he probably does know the price of a loaf of bread.

"I say, Jeeves, what's the price of a loaf of bread?"
;)

Just joshing.  I do agree.

However, when I see a guy like Edwards living like a "sultan" (to steal Billo's term) and pontificating on poverty at that same time, I quake inside. I have the same reaction to Bruce Springsteen singing about "the ghost of old Tom Joad."  I like the message.  The messenger makes me rather uneasy.


I agree with you here in many ways.  When I see somebody living one way and talking another, it makes me feel "Double Standard".  After all, if he really cared about the poor, why did he not start a pro-bono service for the lower class?  Or turn around and give some of the money he made in class-action suits back to the people who really deserve it?

Bruce makes me feel the same way, but for another reason.  And it is the same reason why I feel ambivilant towards Sly Stalone.  Both of them were war protestors, and were "Consciencious Objectors" during Vietnam.  Yet both of them have made millions by making movies or music about veterans of that war.  It is one of the worst form of exploitation.  It would be like if Tom Hanks had a history of gay-bashing, then made Philadelphia.

I guess like many other things, I just hate double-standards.  Somebody who lives like John is just somebody I can't take seriously when we talks about the plight of the poor.  It would kinda be like Pol Pot screaming that somebody else is commiting atrocities.


Yes, John Edwards is rich beyond believe, but at least he hasn't said F*ck the poor.  He does believe that America needs Universal Health Care and quite a number of  programs to benefit the poor.  He one of the most socially and economically aware people I've seen come in a long time.  Heck he probably does know the price of a loaf of bread.


Personally, I just don't think that the Government can handle something like Health Care.  I am under Government Health Care myself at the moment, and it is a complete disaster.  3-4 month waits to see a doctor, having to fight for a prescription for something as basic as Motrin.  Submitting a claim every year for 14 years, only to have every single one refused.  To me, they have already proved that they are not up to the task, even when they have to cover less then 10% of the population.

And I doubt that John Edwards has gone shopping for groceries for years.  And if he did, it would be at a "High Class" store, like Gelsons.

(For those that do not know, Gelsons is a high-end grocery store in LA.  They offer valet parking, and offer food like Black Sea Caviar, Brute champaign, and fresh saffron {$2,700 per pound}.  It is frequented mostly by the rich and Hollywood types, because nobody else can afford it.)

Have they thrown the "loaf of bread" question at him yet?

The private sector can't control the health care crisis nor can the government wonder who can?

For a moment I thought we were talking about this guy.

To answer the question, yes, a rich man can speak for the poor, just like a non-diabetic doctor can help those with diabetes.

Of course it's the easiest way to attack him, much like it's easy to attack Al Gore on his global warming standpoints given he lives in anything but a "green" house.

Why can't he?  It's not like he grew up with a silver spoon in his mouth and has never experienced "the other side" of the "economic fence."  I'd much rather hear his POV than Bush's, who has probably never done a hard day's work in his life.  What does how Edwards lives now have to do with his ability to speak out on economic disparity?  It's not like he's taken advantage of everyone on his way up the economic ladder like Ken Lay and a host of others have done.

Sorry, but it just irks me to no end when people work their way up and are blasted for being successful and "not doing more."  Even if they gave away a majority of their money or talents, people would say they were doing it with an ulterior motive.  They're damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Why can't he?  It's not like he grew up with a silver spoon in his mouth and has never experienced "the other side" of the "economic fence."  I'd much rather hear his POV than Bush's, who has probably never done a hard day's work in his life.  What does how Edwards lives now have to do with his ability to speak out on economic disparity?  It's not like he's taken advantage of everyone on his way up the economic ladder like Ken Lay and a host of others have done.

Sorry, but it just irks me to no end when people work their way up and are blasted for being successful and "not doing more."  Even if they gave away a majority of their money or talents, people would say they were doing it with an ulterior motive.  They're damned if they do and damned if they don't.



I do agree. John Edwards has lived the "American Dream"-poor man makes good. And he didn't make his money the REALLY old fashion way-by inheriting it. We were all told that if you work hard enough, you can become rich. However, many who were born into money feel that they deserve it by the "divine rights of kings". But I have to say that at least Edwards has not forgotten his roots.



Cat

I agree with you here in many ways.  When I see somebody living one way and talking another, it makes me feel "Double Standard".  After all, if he really cared about the poor, why did he not start a pro-bono service for the lower class?  Or turn around and give some of the money he made in class-action suits back to the people who really deserve it?
It is the juxtaposition itself that I have trouble reconciling.  However, if I label Edwards a hypocrite, I have to call myself a hypocrite.  Sure, Edwards with his extravagent wealth could found beneficent organizations...however, I with my modest wage could volunteer time at the local food pantry.  Jesus said to give up all your material wealth and follow Him.  F*ck, we all could do more, couldn't we?  As is, Edwards lives in that gaudy palace and has zillions socked away in investments, yet he is the one addressing the issue of poverty, take or leave it.  I will take it. 

Dennis Kucinich is the other *candidate* who is on message economically.  Kucinich has some bucks, but nothing like Edwards.  Plus Kucinich is a Vegan Yogi.  Plus Kucinich is short and funny-looking.  Being short and funny-looking myself, I know how it's received in our society!
::) ;D

Bruce makes me feel the same way, but for another reason.  And it is the same reason why I feel ambivilant towards Sly Stalone.  Both of them were war protestors, and were "Consciencious Objectors" during Vietnam.  Yet both of them have made millions by making movies or music about veterans of that war.  It is one of the worst form of exploitation.  It would be like if Tom Hanks had a history of gay-bashing, then made Philadelphia.
Uh, MAJOR difference here!  Bigtime!  Bruce Stringbean did not serve in Vietnam, but a decade later he did not make zillions creating an icon of revenge (St-duh-llone's "Rambo") to rile up the rednecks and teach our children that violence is a solution to problems.  Oh, then St-duh-llone got all sanctimonious when the toy companies wanted him to endorse Rambo shoot-em-up products.  "I would never buy those for MY kid! I can live with the licensing fees, though, huh huh!"

"Born in the U.S.A." was anti-war. "Glory Days" was satirical.  "Your Hometown" was a slam against Reaganomics.  However, I saw the right-wing try and adopt the "Born in the U.S.A." as their anthem.  It was then I realized how tone deaf the Right was to irony!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/11/brave.gif

I guess like many other things, I just hate double-standards.  Somebody who lives like John is just somebody I can't take seriously when we talks about the plight of the poor.  It would kinda be like Pol Pot screaming that somebody else is commiting atrocities.
But when the Left says something like that, they're accused of "class envy" by Limbaugh and all those clowns.  The undercurrent of the FOX News outrage is that Edwards is committing "class treason."  He's a multi-millionaire who made his money suing corporations for malfeasance rather than perpetuationg corporate malfeasance.  Now he's reading the Communist Manifesto on the country club links!  We cannot have this!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/06/jinnwink.gif http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/10/tophat.gif

Personally, I just don't think that the Government can handle something like Health Care. 
Where there's will there's a way.  I don't see the will in this government.

And I doubt that John Edwards has gone shopping for groceries for years.  And if he did, it would be at a "High Class" store, like Gelsons.

(For those that do not know, Gelsons is a high-end grocery store in LA.  They offer valet parking, and offer food like Black Sea Caviar, Brute champaign, and fresh saffron {$2,700 per pound}.  It is frequented mostly by the rich and Hollywood types, because nobody else can afford it.)

Ain't that the free market?
Ain't I the one who's supposed to be bellyaching about Gelsons?
;)

Actually, the hypocrites that I like to read about are the Al Gores, the Teresa Heinzes, the John Kerrys, the Angelina Jolies, the John Travoltas... who scream to the rooftops about global warming and the need to "reduce one's carbon footprint".  All the while flying in private planes, driving big honkin' SUVs, and building houses all over the place (which consume energy and emit carbon).

Actually, the hypocrites that I like to read about are the Al Gores, the Teresa Heinzes, the John Kerrys, the Angelina Jolies, the John Travoltas... who scream to the rooftops about global warming and the need to "reduce one's carbon footprint".  All the while flying in private planes, driving big honkin' SUVs, and building houses all over the place (which consume energy and emit carbon).


This is why I normally use the phrase in this kind of situation "take seroiusly".  I am not bashing John Edwards.  He made his money, and I feel he is free to use it in any way he wants.  If he wants to buy a $1 million dollar home for his poodle, that is his right.  If he wants to give it all away, that is his right to.  I simply can't take him serious when he talks about how some people take advantage of the poor, when he was so obviously one of them (look at how much he made off Class-Action suits, compared to those who he was sueing for).

I have the same problem with the vast majority of those on the "Environmental Fringe".  The vast majority talk and whine and cry, but are unwilling to do anything about their own lavish lifestyle to do anything about it.  It is nothing but "do as I say, not as I do".

One of the few I respect is Ed Begley Jr.  While I may not agree with him, I respect his convictions in that he truely tries to live the life that he espouses others to do.  I see people like Ed, then see people like Babs, and it makes me sick.

I completely understand.  Who the hell wants to be told to reduce consumption by those who consume 100 times more than the average person.

Furthermore, nobody likes to be preached at.  Nobody likes to be told what to with their lives.

Now forget about the lifestyle of the messenger for a moment.  Is Al Gore right or is Al Gore wrong?  I happen to think his analysis is correct.  I'm just not as optimistic about our prospects.  I think we're screwed.

You won't hear me telling you what car to drive, what house to live in, what clothes to wear, or what food to eat.  I had a giant roast beef sandwich last night.  Do you know how much land and energy it takes to produce meat?  If I really cared about the poor, starving people of the world, I would have had tofu-and-bean sprout sandwich.  Bleccch!  I'm installing my bedroom air conditioner this weekend. Talk about bad for the enviroment!  If I was a true Eco-Warrior, I would take the heat like a man* instead of acting like a suburban wuss!

Even if I was an off-the-grid-living tent dweller, I still wouldn't tell others how to live because that's obnoxious.

However, I don't go for the delusion that global warming is good for us and free markets will allow every Chinese peasant to one day drive an SUV and cool his noodles in a Frigidaire.
::)

* A sensitive New Age man who is in touch with his feminine side.

I do agree. John Edwards has lived the "American Dream"-poor man makes good. And he didn't make his money the REALLY old fashion way-by inheriting it. We were all told that if you work hard enough, you can become rich. However, many who were born into money feel that they deserve it by the "divine rights of kings". But I have to say that at least Edwards has not forgotten his roots.



Cat


I agree with this.

I saw that episode of The Factor and I thought it was ridiculous.  I don't think his lifestyle really matters.  I mean, come on, if I had that much money I certainly wouldn't be living in a 50 year old 1,300 sq ft ranch house and driving an old Dodge Aspen.  Does Edward give to charity or have any special programs that he contributes too?  That's what Bill needs to look at, not whether or not John Edwards talks to his trailer park neighbors.

I agree with this.
I mean, come on, if I had that much money I certainly wouldn't be living in a 50 year old 1,300 sq ft ranch house and driving an old Dodge Aspen. 

You drive an Aspen?  Does it have the seats made from "fine Corinthian Leather"  ???  ;D

Question what politician is not wealthy?  Unless if it's a real grassroots campaign, which very few are.  It takes money to get into politics.

You drive an Aspen?  Does it have the seats made from "fine Corinthian Leather"  ???   ;D


;D

No, I really don't. 

You drive an Aspen?  Does it have the seats made from "fine Corinthian Leather"  ???  ;D



I think you are thinking of a Cordoba with reclining buckets seats.


http://archshrk.com/2006/05/ricardo-montalban-and-fine-corinthian-leather/


:D ;D ;D ;D ;D



Cat

Question what politician is not wealthy?  Unless if it's a real grassroots campaign, which very few are.  It takes money to get into politics.


That was my point.  If Edwards lived over in the trailer park, he couldn't even think about becoming a contender in presidential politics.  I wish that was not so, but it is.

The rich one of the two major political parties, the Republican Party, devoted exclusively to furthering their interests.* 
So they need to quit bellyaching about Edwards and go recruit Fred Thompson, the new Ronald Reagan.  Or are these champions of the "free market" afraid of the market of ideas?

And Bill Orally keeps calling Edwards a "phony."  Who's he trying to be, Holden Caulfield?
:D

*the Dems are devoted to this cause only a mere 85%.

:D

Why can't he?  It's not like he grew up with a silver spoon in his mouth and has never experienced "the other side" of the "economic fence."  I'd much rather hear his POV than Bush's, who has probably never done a hard day's work in his life.
Strangely enough, I feel compelled to come to Bush's defence... I'm currently reading "Fortunate Son", and have to admit that it's made me raise my estimation of Bush considerably, in that he definitely has done a considerable number of hard days' work (though so far it's not made me change my opinion of him as an intellectual lightweight who doesn't understand the issues set before him, and unable to see past the immediate consequences of any decisions he might make).

On-topic - I'll agree with Max's description of the conundrum: if Edwards didn't have any money, nobody would be listening to him at all... IOW, the *only* sort of person who will speak up is someone who will be open to these sorts of accusations.  It does take a certain guts to raise ones head above the parapet in those conditions, so best of luck to him.

One other thought: I thought that the first Rambo film (First Blood) was a completely different beastie from the others - there was even some valid social commentary amongst the action - and didn't Stallone write that one himself?  OK, so he did rather sell out in doing the second, third, etc. but they'd have been very hard to turn down.  But then he does to Goodison Park, which does show a certain lack of discernment ;)

I'm not so sure about the "richest party" being the Republicans....I don't think that Kerry, Clinton, or a Kennedy is exactly hurting in the money department...we all know now that Edwards is filthy rich...

I do know that in the "pork barrel spending fiasco" in NYS..the Dems got almost 90% of the millions wasted, and thats a fact well published, and it's also a well known fact that our new Governor, the elitist "steam roller" Spitzer is drawing flak from both parties for his double standard money raising tactics....

And as far as a hard days work by any of them, I'm sure that if any of them tried to hang with a working class guy for one day they'd all be heading to the spa at days end..we go home to a cold beer and an evening of working around the house or a quick shower before heading out the door for more fun and games..no servants to make sure our grass is mowed or the shopping/home improvements/pool cleaning is completed...I'd actually love to have any of these people hang drywall with the crew and I for one day.....

One other thought: I thought that the first Rambo film (First Blood) was a completely different beastie from the others - there was even some valid social commentary amongst the action - and didn't Stallone write that one himself?  OK, so he did rather sell out in doing the second, third, etc. but they'd have been very hard to turn down.  But then he does to Goodison Park, which does show a certain lack of discernment ;)

"First Blood" had some commentary in favor of mistreated Vietnam veterans, eg., "We want our country to love us as much as we love it!"  However, "Rambo" endorsed violent, vengeful action whether it be against the U.S. government of the Viet Cong.

"First Blood" had some commentary in favor of mistreated Vietnam veterans, eg., "We want our country to love us as much as we love it!"  However, "Rambo" endorsed violent, vengeful action whether it be against the U.S. government of the Viet Cong.
Yes, I know: though on Sly's behalf, he went round trying to sell "First Blood" - he had the movie studios battering down his door for "Rambo" (IIRC).  It would have taken some kind of saint to have not done the sequel.

Yes, I know: though on Sly's behalf, he went round trying to sell "First Blood" - he had the movie studios battering down his door for "Rambo" (IIRC).  It would have taken some kind of saint to have not done the sequel.


To go way off-topic here,
Some amusing trivia about Rambo, as found on Wikipedia:

The character's creator, novelist David Morrell, is Canadian, not American.
Morrell named Rambo after a kind of apple.
There is an "Arthur John Rambo" etched on the Vietnam War Memorial.  Morrell was unaware of this.
The end title "It's a Long Road Home" was written by singer-songwriter Dan Hill, who wrote one of the most syrupy ballads ever recorded, "Sometimes When We Touch" (1977).  Juxtapose that with "Rambo III," credited as the most violent film ever by Guiness!

http://www.brwm.org/newrivercrafts/product5.jpg
RAMBO

I'm not so sure about the "richest party" being the Republicans....I don't think that Kerry, Clinton, or a Kennedy is exactly hurting in the money department...we all know now that Edwards is filthy rich...


Oh the Democrats are full of filthy rich people also.  But that is ok, because they are the "Good Rich" people.  Just look at some of them, like Kenneth Lay and George Soros.  Not to mention the fact that out of the wealthiest 25 people in the Senate, only 9 are Republicans.  And when you look at the top 25 contributors to 527 groups, all but one are Democrats.

In fact, if you look at all 527 groups, 15 of the top 20 support Democrats.


Question what politician is not wealthy?  Unless if it's a real grassroots campaign, which very few are.  It takes money to get into politics.


Actually, I think it works the other way around.  The wealth of a person simply determins where they make their start in politics.

The higher a person rises, the more interest they attract in Campaign Donations.  A person running for County Commissioner in Henry County Alabama will not get the interest or money of somebody running for Governor or Senator in New York.  And people and groups throw money at them as a way to get special concessions.  It happened in the court of Louis XIV, and it happens in Washington today.

Myself, I would like to see all members of Congress take a vow of poverty.  Make them all live in Government Subsidized housing, and live under a Middle Class income.  And restrict them to the same rules that the President lives under: term limits.  That way they will actually treat working in congress as a job, and not simply as a way to live high on the hog at tax payer's expense.

Oh the Democrats are full of filthy rich people also.  But that is ok, because they are the "Good Rich" people.  Just look at some of them, like Kenneth Lay and George Soros.  Not to mention the fact that out of the wealthiest 25 people in the Senate, only 9 are Republicans.  And when you look at the top 25 contributors to 527 groups, all but one are Democrats.

In fact, if you look at all 527 groups, 15 of the top 20 support Democrats.

Actually, I think it works the other way around.  The wealth of a person simply determins where they make their start in politics.

The higher a person rises, the more interest they attract in Campaign Donations.  A person running for County Commissioner in Henry County Alabama will not get the interest or money of somebody running for Governor or Senator in New York.  And people and groups throw money at them as a way to get special concessions.  It happened in the court of Louis XIV, and it happens in Washington today.

Myself, I would like to see all members of Congress take a vow of poverty.  Make them all live in Government Subsidized housing, and live under a Middle Class income.  And restrict them to the same rules that the President lives under: term limits.  That way they will actually treat working in congress as a job, and not simply as a way to live high on the hog at tax payer's expense.


NOW we're getting somewhere !!  Amazing what fact rather than rhetoric will do for informing people...

Myself, I would like to see all members of Congress take a vow of poverty.  Make them all live in Government Subsidized housing, and live under a Middle Class income.  And restrict them to the same rules that the President lives under: term limits.  That way they will actually treat working in congress as a job, and not simply as a way to live high on the hog at tax payer's expense.

I agree with you here.

However, your previous statements are obfuscation.
Whether you've got ten million dollars or a hundred million dollars makes little difference.  Whether you're super rich or super-duper rich, you don't live in the same world as the rest of us.  I found it absurd when Republican spinmeisters pointed to the fact that Kerry was *richer* than Bush and went "A-ha!"  Jesus H. Christ, does it really matter?  Does either man have to worry about paying the mortgage or the kids' tuitions?  Has either slept in an unheated apartment or stood in line at a soup kitchen lately?  You know, real problems of real Americans!
::)

However, your previous statements are obfuscation.


Oh really?

Here are some facts from the 2004 election cycle:

Listed below are the top 10 527 group PAC organizations, and what they spent on the 2004 election:

Rank  Name                                                                                2004 Fundraising      2004 Expenditures
1      America Coming Together                                                      $78,652,163            $76,270,931
2      Joint Victory Campaign 2004                                                    $71,809,666            $72,347,983
3      Media Fund                                                                          $59,394,183            $54,429,053
4      Progress For America                                                              $44,929,174          $35,437,204
5      Service Employees International Union                                      $42,609,668          $43,979,395
6      American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees    $24,998,802          $25,465,222
7      Swift Boat Veterans for Truth                                                $16,818,390            $22,424,420
8      Club for Growth                                                                    $13,383,974            $16,575,435
9      MoveOn.org                                                                          $12,517,365            $21,205,288
10    New Democratic Network                                                      $12,221,608            $12,194,451

Out of all of those, only 3 (#4 Progress For America, #7 Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and #8 Club For Growth) are considered to be "Right Wing PACs".  Every other group almost universally supports Democrats.  And out of the bottom 20, the other "Right Wing" groups come in at # 15 and #17.  Now where is all of that "Corrupt Capitalist Money"?

When it comes to corporations, they almost universally support both sides.  A lot of people tried to make news about the fact that Enron donated 52% of their campaign money to George Bush in 2000.  But nobody seemed to realize that the other 48% went to Al Gore.  And in 1996, they donated 44% to Bill Clinton (he got most of the money that year, with the remaining spread between Republicans and the Ross Perot "American Independent" party).

And both sides are equally corrupt.  One of the people who first called for an investigation into Enron was Joe Lieberman.  And he claimed that he had no idea how wide-spread the corruption was in Enron.  Never mind that his top aide at the time had worked for 6 years as a lobbyist for Enron.

And of course in 1997, Bill Clinton helped Enron get a $3 billion power plant contract in India.  This happened less then a week after Enron donated $100k to the DNC.  But these are not bribes, they are simply the cost of doing business.

Myself, I would like to see all of this kind of nonsense removed from politics.  Make PACs illegal.  All political campaigns finances are fixed by law, with a spending and donation cap set for all groups, depending on their number of registered voters.  Lobyists should be treated as vermin, with a bounty placed on their heads.

Term limits for all ellected offices.  No more 50+ year Congressmen or 10+ year mayors.  The only office that should be exempt should be judges.  And when they are up for an extension, they should have their prior cases reviewed.  Consideration should be made over things like the number of times they have been overturned by higher courts, the number of mistrials, and allegations of favortism. 

My biggest problem really is the Ted Kennedy's and Orrin Hatch's.  Nobody should be in public office so long that people who were born the first year they held the office are now eligable to vote for them.

Having read this thread...up to here...I can only make one generalization regarding America's allegedly two party system...the votes in the House and Senate reflect a bias by Republicans toward the Corprate elite and by the Democrats toward the workers...aka as the "middle-class, working poor." http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/08/pyth.gif

Who was the last truly progressive Presidents?  Certainly not Bill Clinton. Carter (?). Maybe LBJ, JFK (?), HST (probably), FDR...amazingly progressive for a real blue-blood...But I can't think a any Republicans who ever cared for the common worker of America.  As far as I'm concerned, my definition of a Republican as being "very rich or very stupid" still stands. http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/04/elefant.gif

peace, Lee (aka tokjct)     

Oh really?

Here are some facts from the 2004 election cycle:

Listed below are the top 10 527 group PAC organizations, and what they spent on the 2004 election:

Rank   Name                                                                                2004 Fundraising       2004 Expenditures
1       America Coming Together                                                       $78,652,163            $76,270,931
2       Joint Victory Campaign 2004                                                    $71,809,666            $72,347,983
3       Media Fund                                                                           $59,394,183            $54,429,053
4       Progress For America                                                              $44,929,174           $35,437,204
5       Service Employees International Union                                      $42,609,668           $43,979,395
6       American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees    $24,998,802           $25,465,222
7       Swift Boat Veterans for Truth                                                 $16,818,390            $22,424,420
8       Club for Growth                                                                    $13,383,974             $16,575,435
9       MoveOn.org                                                                          $12,517,365            $21,205,288
10     New Democratic Network                                                       $12,221,608             $12,194,451

Out of all of those, only 3 (#4 Progress For America, #7 Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and #8 Club For Growth) are considered to be "Right Wing PACs".  Every other group almost universally supports Democrats.  And out of the bottom 20, the other "Right Wing" groups come in at # 15 and #17.  Now where is all of that "Corrupt Capitalist Money"?
Yes indeed, you got me beat there. The Republican Party is the party of the $10.00 donation from sod-busting salt-of-the-Earth Norman Rockwell Americans and I challenge anybody to prove otherwise.
;D

When it comes to corporations, they almost universally support both sides.  A lot of people tried to make news about the fact that Enron donated 52% of their campaign money to George Bush in 2000.  But nobody seemed to realize that the other 48% went to Al Gore.  And in 1996, they donated 44% to Bill Clinton (he got most of the money that year, with the remaining spread between Republicans and the Ross Perot "American Independent" party).

And both sides are equally corrupt.  One of the people who first called for an investigation into Enron was Joe Lieberman.  And he claimed that he had no idea how wide-spread the corruption was in Enron.  Never mind that his top aide at the time had worked for 6 years as a lobbyist for Enron.

And of course in 1997, Bill Clinton helped Enron get a $3 billion power plant contract in India.  This happened less then a week after Enron donated $100k to the DNC.  But these are not bribes, they are simply the cost of doing business.
Of course corporations are going to play both sides.  They favor Republicans over Democrats, but if a Dem gets in...well you, know, one hand washes the other.  I agree, it's disgusting.  Nader's people refer to the R and D parties as the "business parties."  I agree with that generalization.  If the Enron scheme hadn't collapsed, they'd be lining Hillary's pockets as we speak and courting Rudy and Mitt!  These bastards don't represent we the people.  They represent big oil, big pharm, big armamentents, big science,* big business, Wal-Mart, and Wall Street. 

Last time I voted for a Clinton was 1992, and I intend to keep it the first and last.

The reason the Bush family is more venal the the Clinton-Rodham clan is they've been at it a lot longer!

*and I don't mean Laurie Anderson, unfortunately!

Myself, I would like to see all of this kind of nonsense removed from politics.  Make PACs illegal.  All political campaigns finances are fixed by law, with a spending and donation cap set for all groups, depending on their number of registered voters.  Lobyists should be treated as vermin, with a bounty placed on their heads.
Again, I'm with you, Mush!  But you just go tell that to Grover Norquist and he will drown you in his bathtub!
::)

Term limits for all ellected offices.  No more 50+ year Congressmen or 10+ year mayors.  The only office that should be exempt should be judges.  And when they are up for an extension, they should have their prior cases reviewed.  Consideration should be made over things like the number of times they have been overturned by higher courts, the number of mistrials, and allegations of favortism. 

My biggest problem really is the Ted Kennedy's and Orrin Hatch's.  Nobody should be in public office so long that people who were born the first year they held the office are now eligable to vote for them.
If we reformed the campaign finance system and gave third parties and independents a fighting chance, this might obviate the need for term limits.  I would prefer to see equal funding, equal air time, and instant runoff voting.
Teddy Kennedy was up there on the Hill the other day hollaring about how "It's a jungle down there on the border!"  A jungle on the U.S.--Mexican border?  Put down the bottle of vodka and pick up an atlas, teddy!
;D
OK--he meant it figuratively, but sometimes Ted Kennedy sets me to wondering, "What if....."

Oh really?

Here are some facts from the 2004 election cycle:

Listed below are the top 10 527 group PAC organizations, and what they spent on the 2004 election:

Rank   Name                                                                                2004 Fundraising       2004 Expenditures
1       America Coming Together                                                       $78,652,163            $76,270,931
2       Joint Victory Campaign 2004                                                    $71,809,666            $72,347,983
3       Media Fund                                                                           $59,394,183            $54,429,053
4       Progress For America                                                              $44,929,174           $35,437,204
5       Service Employees International Union                                      $42,609,668           $43,979,395
6       American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees    $24,998,802           $25,465,222
7       Swift Boat Veterans for Truth                                                 $16,818,390            $22,424,420
8       Club for Growth                                                                    $13,383,974             $16,575,435
9       MoveOn.org                                                                          $12,517,365            $21,205,288
10     New Democratic Network                                                       $12,221,608             $12,194,451

Out of all of those, only 3 (#4 Progress For America, #7 Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, and #8 Club For Growth) are considered to be "Right Wing PACs".  Every other group almost universally supports Democrats.  And out of the bottom 20, the other "Right Wing" groups come in at # 15 and #17.  Now where is all of that "Corrupt Capitalist Money"?

When it comes to corporations, they almost universally support both sides.  A lot of people tried to make news about the fact that Enron donated 52% of their campaign money to George Bush in 2000.  But nobody seemed to realize that the other 48% went to Al Gore.  And in 1996, they donated 44% to Bill Clinton (he got most of the money that year, with the remaining spread between Republicans and the Ross Perot "American Independent" party).

And both sides are equally corrupt.  One of the people who first called for an investigation into Enron was Joe Lieberman.  And he claimed that he had no idea how wide-spread the corruption was in Enron.  Never mind that his top aide at the time had worked for 6 years as a lobbyist for Enron.

And of course in 1997, Bill Clinton helped Enron get a $3 billion power plant contract in India.  This happened less then a week after Enron donated $100k to the DNC.  But these are not bribes, they are simply the cost of doing business.

Myself, I would like to see all of this kind of nonsense removed from politics.  Make PACs illegal.  All political campaigns finances are fixed by law, with a spending and donation cap set for all groups, depending on their number of registered voters.  Lobyists should be treated as vermin, with a bounty placed on their heads.

Term limits for all ellected offices.  No more 50+ year Congressmen or 10+ year mayors.  The only office that should be exempt should be judges.  And when they are up for an extension, they should have their prior cases reviewed.  Consideration should be made over things like the number of times they have been overturned by higher courts, the number of mistrials, and allegations of favortism. 

My biggest problem really is the Ted Kennedy's and Orrin Hatch's.  Nobody should be in public office so long that people who were born the first year they held the office are now eligable to vote for them.


I agree that there should be term limits as well as a cap on campaign money.  I also think donation money causes too much corruption in the government.  I despise career politicians.  It is a government for the people, yet they get these jobs in government sitting on very decent pay while thinking they know what is best for our country.

There are times that I doubt that there are really anyone in government, any party, that truely cares about the people in this country.  

There are times that I doubt that there are really anyone in government, any party, that truely cares about the people in this country. 

Surely it's the fault of the electorate for voting in people who don't care?  That's what you get in a democracy, after all: the people running things are those who are best at getting themselves elected... not the best at getting the job done, and definitely not the most caring (who for different reasons are usually not the best people at running things).

That's something GWB has shown himself rather good at: raising money, and getting elected.

That's something GWB has shown himself rather good at: raising money, and getting elected.

Erm, make that: raising money and stealing elections.
::)

Erm, make that: raising money and stealing elections.
::)


make that having money raised by people who know a usuable idiot when they see one, and getting elections stolen in his name.

Erm, make that: raising money and stealing elections.
::)

What I said: getting elected... fair means or foul.  There wasn't any suggestion he stole the governorship of Texas, was there?

make that having money raised by people who know a usuable idiot when they see one, and getting elections stolen in his name.

Well, by "Bush" I mean the Bush Syndicate.  It's sort of like when you talk about "Disney" it's understood you don't mean Mickey Mouse.  The difference is Mickey doesn't refer to himself as "the decider."
:P


What I said: getting elected... fair means or foul.  There wasn't any suggestion he stole the governorship of Texas, was there?

No, but Mel Brooks in "Blazing Saddles" is the model for what is expected of the governor of Texas!
;D