Two questions. One (presumably) simple, and one probably idiotically naive.
First, I had gotten the impression that Soros was strictly interested in ousting Bush. A#1 priority, that’s all she wrote. Is that not the case?
Second, why is someone necessarily beholden to those who give campaign contributions? For example, were Bush to be reelected (say, if Satan’s filing clerks don’t keep good records and they allow him to sell his soul twice), is there anything besides habit to keep him from saying, “Thanks for the money, big oil. Now fuck you all! I’m gonna fix the environment! Hahahaha!”?
This sentimentseems to assume that 527s were not around/possibloe before the McCain-Feingold. This is a fals assumption. These sort of groups existed without the campaign finance reform.
Or, if it does not presuppose the non-existence of 527 type groups prior to the campaign finance reform, then it is a non-sequitur.
The support of ampaign finance reform is utterly unrelated to the financing of such groups. The funding of such groups was possible before the reform, and is still possible since the reform.
Further, I’m not sure if there is such a thing as ‘“ultra leftist” multi-billionaire’ (given conventional definitions of the words).
Yeah, just a little bit of an ambush and then hide behind a source there. “George Soros has bought Kerry and the country! … or so says a newspaper.”
So the debate is “Will Kerry owe [Soros] favors?” We’ll see if Kerry is elected and Soros starts lobbying for something. If he doesn’t, I imagine some might insinuate he’s just ordering Kerry around instead of lobbying publicly (just to make sure there aren’t any holes in the theory), but what do I know?
It doesn’t even mention any contributions to Kerry’s campaign (I’m sure he’s made some, but they’re not mentioned). The article states that his goal is to unseat Bush II and revitalize the Democratic process. Oh, the horror.
Probably hoping for a tax cut that benefits the rich.
Soros is a very, very odd duck. His combination of cold calculation and wild-eyed, Pollyannish optimism is unparalleled. He made his fortune in the currency exchange, which, to my limited understanding, is one of the riskiest games in town. But score he did, and oodles of it.
Then he turns around and pisses away millions and millions of dollars trying to rescue Soviet Russia from chaos and plutocracy, a quixotic venture if ever there was one.
I cannot really relate to Mr. Soros, we both put on our pants one leg at a time, and stand to pee. That is probably the extent of our commonality. So I have no real clear idea why he despises GeeDubya (Praise the Leader!). It may be for the same reasons I do, maybe not.
Suffice to say I do not entirely trust Mr. Soros. I suspect many Democrats have similar views. But the humor inherent in Pubbie horror and dismay as regards rich folks with inordinate political power…well, haven’t laughed so hard since they shot Ol’ Yeller!
I’ll take one Democratic Party, please, and have it wrapped.
Soros has been described in the press as more “libertarian” than anything, although I’ve never seen the proof to back that up. He seems to be more of an ego maniac along the lines of a Ted Turner or Larry Ellison, and someone whose success in business has convinced him that he has just the answer for what is best for government.
At any rate, it’s his money. Let him spend it as he pleases.
Shrug. The Halliburton company, drug companies, oil companies and the Wylie brothers etc own Bush, so why sould it be so amazing that someone might try to throw money at Democrats too? Is this guy for some reason more creepy than the ultra conservative extreme right wing guys who toss money at Republicans? Maybe he is secretly The Kingpin or Lex Luthor. At any rate, at least Kingpin has style and Lex has a brain. Oh please. It’s OK to buy one guy, but not the other? :dubious:
Campaign contributors don’t “buy” any polticians. People contribute to the campaigns of those with whom they share a political ideology. Or, in Soros’s case, he contributes to the groups that share his political ideology (i.e., anybody but Bush).
As to the assertion by SteveG1 that the oil companies, etc., own Bush, that’s just as silly. They support Bush because he supports policies with which they agree. Bush believes in less regulation over industries that extract natural resources. One does not have to be “bought off” to do so. These industries create jobs and power our economy. Letting them do their job in a more efficient manner is better for the country. You can disagree with this assertion, but you have to recognize that it’s a valid opinion to hold. Many pepole (myself included) who don’t get any money from extractive industries believe this, so why is it so hard to believe that maybe Bush is sincere in his belief, too? And of course these resource industries will support politicians that hold that view. It has nothing to do with corruption.
It’s simply lazy political analysis to attribute the actions of your political opponents to being “in the pockets” of a certain industry, business, rich billionaire, etc. This has little basis in reality, no matter how much the media repeat it.
Well, that depends on how you define “efficient”. If you (as I anticipate) believe that it means, “Get the hell outta their way and let 'em do what they do,” then great swaths of the country are harmed. Which I don’t think is better for the country at all. 'Samatter of fact, taking a macro view, I think that it is considerably worse for the country. Of course, if I’m mistaken in your definition, then I welcome a correction.
Not necessarily mistaken, just a bit hyperbolic. No one is proposing to do away with all regulations and “let them do what they do” without any oversight. Most of Bush’s regulatory changes have allowed them to do their job in a more efficient manner while still retaining the same protection of the environment. It’s just that companies now have more freedom in the way they can comply with the law. A DC-mandated one-size-fits-all regulatory scheme is bad for business and is often bad for the environment, because the agency becomes more focused on the process rather than the outcome.
And, if you’re so concerned about hte “great swaths of the country” that are supposedly harmed by these businesses, why don’t you go there and talk to the locals? You’ll find that they prefer less regulation on these businesses. I come from such an area, and Bill Clinton was hated there for one reason – his environmental policies. These policies were blamed for putting people out of work and devastating rural areas. These extractive industries that are attacked by liberals provided good jobs to blue collar workers. Why do you think West Virginia went for Bush? It was because they knew that coal mining would fare better under Bush than Gore. By making regulations of these industries have a dose of common sense, Bush is not “paying back” his donors; he’s preserving and creating jobs for all those people the liberals claim to care about – the lower and middle class.
Really? I recall hearing a little something about the “Clean Skies” initiative. Do you count that amongst those who are retaining the same protection of the environment?
You, sir, win the understatement of the day award. Well, for now. It’s not even noon.
Ooooh, way to call into doubt any concern I might have great swaths of the country. And you personalized it by telling me I should speak to the locals. Well played.
Imagine that. People taking a micro view that’s in their best self interest. As opposed to looking at an issue long-term. Yowza! I never would have expected that. And you don’t suppose that their views might be colored by the businesses that tell them that as soon as the government gets involved, their jobs are going down the crapper, do you?
Yes they do. And I think that it’s great that they do. But someone, somewhere, needs to look at the long-term affects of these extractive industries, as well as the fact that they’re gonna go away eventually anyway. D’you suppose the people will blame a conservative if he happens to be in office when the jobs start to disappear due to the fact that there’s no more coal?
Dunno. Is a Bush the governor? Does Diebold oversee the programs for the computerized voting booths?
Ooooh, again with making me out to be a heartless liberal. Do you do this professionally? And perhaps coal mining did fare better, I honestly don’t know. But the fact of the matter is that the mining comapnies are gonna bail out and go over the next hill. That’s what they do. Once the seams are mined, go find another one. Eventually, they’ll be out of seams. Did Gore have something in his positions about alternative industry? And if so, do you really thaink that he would have shat all over the part of the country from whence he came?
GLWasteful, it’s interesting how you deprecate the lower and middle class, assuming that they don’t know what’s good for them and being brainwashed into voting Republican because their bosses tell them their jobs will be gone if they don’t. Actually, it has nothing to do with brainwashing. These people see that when Clinton was in office their access to public lands was cut off and their ability to log in national forests and mine on BLM land was substantially reduced. And so when many timber mills shut down and mining operations were closed, it wasn’t these people’s imagination. It was reality.
And these people aren’t stupid. They know mining jobs likely won’t be there in a 100 years or so. But they also know that they would have been able to mine the coal that was there if these heavy-handed government regulations weren’t in place.
And for other extractive industries, such as logging, there is no need for them to ever go away. Lumber is a renewable resource, and there is plenty of it to cut if the government wouldn’t lock it up.
And I apologize for implying that you were a “heartless liberal.” I guess on conservatives or libertarians should get tarred with that brush, huh? I do think it’s heartless, though, to destroy jobs and American industry by piling on needless regulations. And then the party that does it turns around and claims that it’s for the “little guy.”
And as for the Clean Skies initiative, that sounds like a very good plan to reduce air pollution. Using the market to deal with pollution is a much better option than command-and-control regulations that mandate only one way to deal with a problem.