The Big Enchilada, Stuart Stevens, page 201 (emphasis in the original)
So what is the back-story behind this? I’m getting the sense that Gore gave a speech at some Ashram or other and then asked the monks robes for some cash to ward off the dreaded Dub-Ya.
And yes I could Google it but I know that others have the information and can likely deliver it more accurately – in aggregate – and certainly more amusingly than anything I’d dig up and this save me a few hours while allowing others to demonstrate the wonderfulness of The Straight Dope.
Thanks in advance;
Zeke
P.S. I am not a Republican - in fact I’m just barely right of West - and this is not a partisan attack on Gore. I would’ve likely voted for him but I’d hold my nose doing it. I’m Canadian so I was saved the horror except by extension.
Fair enough, and I certainly don’t envy them that.
That being said, I’m not criticising Gore for his raising funds. I’m not criticising Gore at all. I’m reading the above mentioned book and came across the quoted anecdote and thought to myself, “Damn, I’ll bet there’s likely a funny-assed story behind this.”
There isn’t, sorry. Just another church fundraiser. But it got heavily promoted by his opposition anyway, for reasons perhaps based on the word “Buddhist”.
I guess my problem is that your quote doesn’t make any sense. There’s no conflict between advocating a rule change and playing within the existing rule set either in sports or politics. There’s also a curious lack of specificity in the quote.
And there’s no conflict between wanting campaign finance reform and financing one’s campaign. Where does the author expect campaign funds to come from, if not directly from donors?
I am not anti-gore, this is not a stealth attack on Democrats, I neither agreed nor disagreed with the author’s choice of words or point of view.
I just thought it sounded like there might be something funny (as in ha ha as opposed to fishy. The idea of a presidential candidate hitting up the Buddhists monks - you know the guys famous for owning nothing and begging) is intrinsically funny. I was hoping the details would make it funnier.
ETA - I put this in GQ specifically because I wanted a factual - if humourous -answer.
AFAICT, non-profit organisations are not allowed to donate to political campaigns. The organiser of the fundraiser was charged and the head of the temple resigned. Gore claimed he didn’t know it was a fund-raiser he was appearing at; he thought it was just a lunch.
That pretty much tells me what I wanted to know in a nutshell. And, I have to admit, it retains it’s intrinsic humour.
Any salacious details known by Dopers are welcome. By this I mean funny quotes as people try to dodge- things of that nature.
Again, I am not anti-Gore I just really think this has some potential for laughs. If however the comedic depths have been drained then I’m happy to give up the fight.
That’s one of the richest veins of accusing politicians of hypocrisy. But particularly in regard to campaign finance, it’s ludicrous to handicap yourself by following the law as you wish it to be while everyone else is following the law as it is.
This article from the New York Times of February 15, 1997 is about a Gore fund=raising event at a Buddhist temple in California. (I don’t know if this is the same event you’re referring to. Although if it is, isn’t it old news?) The article says, “Gore’s stop at the temple has been a continuing source of controversy because $140,000 in campaign money was raised in a religious institution and because of questions about the true source of some of the money.” It goes on to say, “The Democratic National Committee subsequently said that in hindsight it was a mistake to raise donations in a religious institution, which has tax-exempt status.” It also mentions that one concern was how the mainland Chinese government would respond to the event. (I believe the temple was run by Taiwanese Buddhists.)
If you wanted a strictly factual answer it would have been better to refrain from the provocative thread title and the political side-commentary in the OP. Given this, I’m going to move this to IMHO.
Maybe it doesn’t strike you as funny, if so I’m sorry - a joke is seldom funny when explained.
I’m going to respond as if you’re serious with - the understanding that I might be being whooshed.
There is a very common stereotype of politicians being the most avaricious and slavering people there are - right alongside used car salesfolk and lawyers.
For a politician to be “passing the hat around” at an Ashram is, on the surface, the epitome of that.
The conception that I have of Buddhist monks is, I think, pretty much the common one. They are humble people who have taken vows of poverty (amongst other things) and such they beg. In return the people get a blessing and karmic points for contributing.
I know Buddhism is much more complex and I’m talking about a stereotype but the humour, to me, is the stereotype of the grubbing politician colliding with the stereotype of the impoverished monks.
The fact that the head monk and some wonk both had to quit over it just adds.
Like Heinlein said, to paraphrase, you laugh to make the pain go away.
I don’t know why you assume that Buddhist monks were the only ones at the event or the only ones asked for contributions. If one were to hold an event at a Christian church, would friars, monks, priests and/or ministers be the only ones there? Or would the audience include the congregation?
No, I was completely serious - I could not understand what was remotely funny about it. Your explanation gives me an idea of what you see humorous about it, although it is based on a misunderstanding that is required to make it funny.
First, it was at a Buddhist temple, not a monastery. Only the monks take the poverty vows. There were probably many successful businessmen in the audience. That’d be like assuming everyone in a Catholic church had taken a vow of celibacy. So, that’s why I didn’t see any humor. I am not criticising your sense of humor.
P.S. It definitely was not an Ashram - wrong religion.
I don’t see how it’s the same thing. Buddhism teaches that freedom from want is the secret to happiness. You’ve actually made me curious how Buddhism reconciles this with people having wealth.
And, yes, you can say the same thing about Christianity. It took a creative interpretation of some Scriptures, basically. “With God, all things are possible” is one such out.
Buddhism doesn’t have to reconcile it. Buddhism teaches that if you want to be released from the cycle of suffering, then a way to accomplish that is to eliminate desire. However, Buddhism doesn’t require you to do that.
Buddhism makes a distinction between monks and laypeople. Lay people have a lot fewer rules to follow. They don’t expect to become Enlightened either, in this lifetime at least.