Fat Cat Democrats on Pork Patrol

The Dems are in the driver’s seat, raking in the big bucks, fighting to keep secret earmarks (no wonder confidence in congress is at an all time low) and transforming themselves again into the party of power & plutocrats. Democrats will have to refine their self image. They can still be the party of the little guy … if that little guy puts up $4600 for the Democrat cause.

Look at contributions from super fat cats – those that give the maximum of $4600. Clinton wins the gold medal for grabbing the gold. No surprise. The Clinton machine has always been good at finding money, even in unlikely places like Buddist temples. But more surprising is that Democrats sweep ALL the top places. Biden takes the silver medal; Dodd gets the bronze and Edwards finishes just a little after that. That kind of coin buys lots of $1000 haircuts for the South Carolina personal injury lawyer. You have to go all the way down to fifth place before you get your first Republican (Guiliani) and after that you are back with Democrats (Obama).

For somebody who likes maps, this link was interesting. You see that the Clinton stronghold is in the old money states. She gets New York & California. Romney is strong on the plains and in the mountains. Edwards is king of the Confederacy. None of the others have much of a clear pattern, except for the Huckabee and Thompson holding their home states of Arkansas and Wisconsin, respectively.

Another interesting map shows the fund raising by state. The surprise here is the Democratic strength in the Confederacy. Question: If the Dems start winning in the South, will they stop making fun of southerners?

We already see that getting the big bucks has just shut their mouths about the problem of money in politics. I saw this coming coming down the road a while back. Maybe Dems can buy some pickup trucks with rebel flags in the back window to carry away all their cash.

As Howard Dean might yell – Yeehaw.

Posted by Jack at July 16, 2007 9:08 PM
Comment #226609

Yes, Democrat fundraising is not surprising. A lot of people are sick of Republican mismanagement of the country. As they say, money talks. I suppose this might make some Republicans more receptive to finding Constitutional ways to limit the influence of money on elections.

Since 2001, non-discretionary expenditures have increased by 36 percent. Add increased defense spending and tax cuts and you have the reason the national debt under Bush has shot heavenward.

It takes amazing hypocrisy for Republicans to suddenly get the earmark religion now. Regardless, we do need to control earmarks, especially after Republicans have increased earmarks manyfold, and liberals need to stick it to the Democrats on that score. The Republicans, though, don’t have any moral authority on this issue.

Posted by: Gerrold at July 16, 2007 9:38 PM
Comment #226612

I find the information in the Gallup Poll to be pretty astounding. Of all the institutions recorded in this Gallup Poll, the Democratic-run Congress is at the very lowest rank. Of the bottom eight institutions, from worst first is:

Dead last- Congress at 14% confidence

HMO’s at 15% confidence

Big business at 18% confidence

Organized labor unions at 19% confidence

the criminal justice system at 19% confidence

Newspapers at 22% confidence

Television News at 23% confidence

and the President at 25% confidence

This is great news for Republicans. Of the eight lowest organizations and institutions, five are particularly beholden to the Democratic Party. Those five being Congress, Organized labor, the liberal Criminal Justice system, Major Newspapers, and Network Television News.
It seems that perhaps the reason the Democrats, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and Network News shows want to keep reminding people of the President’s low poll numbers, might be to hope to erode his numbers to a point where he might get as low as theirs!


Posted by: JD at July 16, 2007 9:56 PM
Comment #226613


Moral authority?

I have always been against earmarks. Money in politics doesn’t bother me very much really. I just want to point out to Dems that they are more the party of the plutocrats.

This has been going on for a long time. In the last presidential race, all the canidates were rich, but Kerry was by far the richest and Bush the poorest. The richest guys in congress are Dems. If you look at the figures, the rich guys are giving to Dems. The “establishment” is liberal.

Maybe that is because a freer market is better for those who want to become wealthy, but a more restricted one is better for a wealthy person who wants to keep his relative position. The Kennedys and the Kerrys already got their piles.

Posted by: Jack at July 16, 2007 9:59 PM
Comment #226614

Jack, it’s just a commonplace to accuse Republicans in general—and especially Bush—of being “fat cats” but as you point out, this is just propaganda.

George Bush is not poor by any measure. He’s worth somewhere between 9-26 million dollars. If it’s on the low side, then I know quite a few people personally who are as rich or richer than he is. Hell, my family dentist who has worked for almost 35 years and made a couple of real estate investments along the way has assets and properties that are probably worth than Bush’s, and he’s still doing root canals. He certainly isn’t “profiteering” from Haliburton and the oil companies.

Bush’s fortune is nothing to sneeze at, but Democrats John Edwards, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, and a number of others are FAR wealthier than he is.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at July 16, 2007 10:24 PM
Comment #226615


It will take much for Congress to recover the public’s confidence after years of it toadying to the worst president we’ve had in many decades.


I’m not even going to verify who the richest guys in Congress are because it’s irrelevant to my point. Money has far too vast an influence in politics; neither party is a saint on this issue. I do find it convenient for Republicans to suddenly get the earmark religion, but if that is what it takes to get some control over earmarks, that’s how it has to be. I get annoyed at easy potshots taken at one party when it implies that the other party is somehow “better.”

I realize you were being deliberately provocative and I took the bait. Shame on me.

Posted by: Gerrold at July 16, 2007 10:25 PM
Comment #226616


Most of the things I do today, I do because it is fun. We have to be provocative. It would not be much fun if we just agreed.

In real life, we would seek compromise to work together. In the conflict of ideas we need to emphasize the differences in order to come closer to a truth.

Posted by: Jack at July 16, 2007 10:34 PM
Comment #226619

JD lest we forget Congress is almost half repub, IMHO the reason the polls show them at 14% is because there is still to many repubs holding up the progress. Also to think that other than the labor unions are dems is pretty naive or a whole lot of wishful thinking on your part. BTW why all of a sudden has your opinion of polls changed so much just a short while ago they didnt mean a thing to you and the repubs in general ?

Posted by: j2t2 at July 16, 2007 10:41 PM
Comment #226622


The truth is, I’m more freaked out over our dysfunctional government than I’ve ever been, and I’ve been politically aware for nearly three decades. Sometime in the last year I just had enough. The only hope I really see is for some members of both parties to become genuine statesman, because scoring political points for their own sake isn’t going to solve any problems.

I can’t quite make myself go third party because that’s so quixotic.

The vast increase in federal expenditures over the last six years, the incredible increase in national debt, the executive’s branch disregarding the rule of law, Congress’ neglect in curbing the executive branch, the hysteria over terrorism, the enormous power of monied interests, our inability to take serious steps to mitigate climate change — at some point, I just stopped enjoying the political gotcha game, and I played it happily for many years. My god, in newspaper editorials I used to ream Dick Armey, who taught economics at the local university when he was first running for the House, in ways worthy of an Ann Coulter.

Maybe I’m just getting old. I stay politically aware out of a sense of duty and obligation, but for fun I turn to my other interests.

Posted by: Gerrold at July 16, 2007 10:57 PM
Comment #226627

The criminal justice system is liberal?Fantastic. What on earth leads you to that conclusion?

Ah Jack,poor Jack

The smart money is backing winners. I thought you liked the free market approach.Are you saying that that fatcats should have their free speach rights curtailed? FYI The Dems,especially Obama are also getting a hell of a lot of small contributions also.
Perhaps at some point when you have the time we could discuss Edward’s health proposal instead of haircuts.

Posted by: BillS at July 16, 2007 11:14 PM
Comment #226635


I am working on an article about just that, but at the risk of changing the topic a bit, *WHY* does Edwards say this?

Businesses have a responsiblity to support their employees’ health.

Why? Why does business have any responsibility other than to provide a safe working environment, everything else negotiable with the worker? By making EVERY business provide health insurance you’ve just made sure no businesses smaller than 30 employees survive, if you give them a break why not those with 50? 100?

I’m sure I’m missing something but I just don’t understand this concept that business has these responsibilities, isn’t it the individual’s responsibility and his alone?

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 17, 2007 12:12 AM
Comment #226637

“Perhaps at some point when you have the time we could discuss Edward’s health proposal instead of haircuts.”
Posted by: BillS at July 16, 2007 11:14 PM

Maybe if Edwards would give me a tax cut worth about the price of one of his haircuts per year, I could vote him.

On second thought, Nah!!! I don’t think so!


Posted by: JD at July 17, 2007 12:49 AM
Comment #226645

This is article is just plain hilarious. The money follows the direction of power. Republicans proved they weren’t capable of holding onto power, so the money went in the other direction. To now blame Democrats for taking it, is the best laugh I have had in awhile at WatchBlog.

Now if you were to write an article about the corrupting influence of money in our government and poiltical system of campaign financing, I would join you in critique of both parties. But, that would not be this article by a long shot. This is a spilled milk article, and Republican candidates are licking up what’s left on the floor for them. This is a real belly jostler.

Thanks, Jack for insuring a continued place for humor in political debate?

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 17, 2007 3:02 AM
Comment #226651


I agree that spending by the last congress was way too high. It was disappointing to see the Republicans do that, especially when they were successful in controlling spending in the 1990s. That convinced me even more that it is the nature of the government beast to spend too much money. Maybe we need that divided government. We need to be ever vigilant against politicians bribing us with our own money. When we ask the government to do things we can do for ourselves, we get more trouble.


Yes, the smart MONEY is backng the Dems. What does that smart money expect in return?

I do not have as much trouble with money in politics as some, but politics is not a free market. The money invested in politics is done in hopes of using government’s power of coercion and taxation to gain some advantage. If the big money is following the Dems, it is because those who have that money figure it is their best investment. Is their preference also your best investment?


Please see above. We have a general problem with government. I am not saying the Dems should not take the money and their surely will. The question is what does the money think it is buying? Maybe more ethanol subsidies? Maybe more power for teachers’ unions to protect members from parents? More influence for personal injury lawyers and an end to tort reform? Higher income taxes to pay for more programs favored by those investing in the Dems?

Posted by: Jack at July 17, 2007 7:45 AM
Comment #226660


-Liberal criminal justice system? Would that be the cops? Prosecutors? Judges? Exactly who are you talking about?

- The labor unions are beholden to the Democratic party? This must be a change in position. Republicans are always saying it is the Democrats who are beholden to the unions. Oh by the way, my union is almost evenly split on endorsements 45/55

Posted by: 037 at July 17, 2007 8:46 AM
Comment #226664


One very important aspect the poll does not reflect is why the polls are so low. It only speculates that people are dissatisfied with the direction of the Iraq conflict and the economy. Both of which you are a strong advocate. Our republican legislators continue to side with our president and openly block any democrat progress on the main issues despite the fact that the majority of voters do not agree with his direction concerning these matters. The poll also indicates that our views towards big business, the church our banks, unions and the justice system are at all time lows. These are all, with the exception of unions, institutions that the last legislature pandered to and had great influence with. I suggest that the low approval is a result of basically no progress being made in congress. And that lack of progress is the result of continued republican obstructionism despite the new directions desired by the voters of this country. The people of this country are not stupid. We know why progress is not being made. And we are very concerned. Attempts by people such as yourself to put the blame on the dems simply because they now have the majority is an obvious and weak attempt to make them look bad. In reality what we see is a continued republican led sleaze agenda which is all about politics rather than what is good for this country. What this poll really reflects is that nothing obvious has changed since the last legislature.

There should be no such thing as earmarks. All legislation should stand alone in the open for all to see. The idea of earmarks being hidden in legislation having nothing to do with the earmark is imo ridiculous and nothing more than another form of corruption. The influence of money must be removed from politics. It is corruptive and lends no credibility to honest government.

I agree with your attitude towards provacation. It can be entertaining and fun. For me it is often the catalyst which triggers many of my thoughts.

Posted by: ILdem at July 17, 2007 9:33 AM
Comment #226668

Jack - this is a simple cause and effect equation.

Terrible Republican President + pointless, interminable war + dozens of scandals + betrayal of Republican reputation as fiscally responsible = pissed off and disillusioned Republican base who don’t want to contribute money to the party right now.

At the other end of the spectrum…

Terrible Republican President + pointless, interminable war + dozens of scandals + betrayal of Republican reputation as fiscally responsible = angry and motivated Democratic base who want to contribute money to the party right now in order to stop the Republican war machine.

Simple. Not sinister.

Posted by: Jon Rice at July 17, 2007 10:28 AM
Comment #226675

Jack, with regard to serious debate, we are now getting somewhere.

You said: “I agree that spending by the last congress was way too high.”

Excellent! Agree.

“It was disappointing to see the Republicans do that, especially when they were successful in controlling spending in the 1990s.”

With the help of Clinton’s VETO PEN at the Ready!

“That convinced me even more that it is the nature of the government beast to spend too much money.”

Government is not a beast. It is what voters allow it to be. The only thing inherently wrong with our government with regard to spending is voter’s lazy voting habits. If the people make dropping the level of government spending a priority by not electing incumbents who spend, spending will drop.

But as we saw in 2004, even after years of profligate spending, Republicans and many Independents continued to reelect big spending Republican and Democrat incumbents.

“Maybe we need that divided government. We need to be ever vigilant against politicians bribing us with our own money.”

Now, on this we have total agreement. Divided government was cornerstone of our U.S. Constitution. Too bad our forefathers could not see political parties coming as they wrote the Constitution.

“When we ask the government to do things we can do for ourselves, we get more trouble.”

But, when we ask the government to help those who cannot help themselves, do you and I still agree?

“Yes, the smart MONEY is backng the Dems. What does that smart money expect in return?”

That is truly the question voters should be asking themselves, and they should be on the constant lookout for quid pro quo to help them decide who to vote out of office.

“The money invested in politics is done in hopes of using government’s power of coercion and taxation to gain some advantage.”

Now, we are singing the same song! In harmony.

“If the big money is following the Dems, it is because those who have that money figure it is their best investment. Is their preference also your best investment?”

Is their preference also a wise choice for the nation’s future and the people’s sustainability and well being? The most important question of all.

Which is why just ending Soc. Sec. and Medicare is no solution at all. That would create as large, if not larger problems, than those programs now portend. It would leave 10’s of millions of Americans in poverty, suffering, and dying for lack of medical assistance.

Sure, it would lower spending, but, would create an outcry from the public and backlash against government not seen since the Revolutionary War. Because the backdrop of cutting those programs would be that the wealthiest would continue to be the wealthiest, and the non-wealthy would bear the suffering of wholesale spending cuts. The people would demand taxing the wealthy to offset the suffering as a natural and understandable consequence.

Which is why saving Soc. Sec. and Medicare are necessary goals, while at the same time, reforming them in a manner that is sustainable, and absent broad and severe suffering by the people, wealthy and non-wealthy. A shared sacrifice is called for in the reforms that can achieve future stability and sustainability. Delay is not an option. Yet delay is the goal of these incumbent politicians because reforms will carry a political cost.

It is up to the people to take control of the situation by making their vote dependent upon right action of their representatives. Fortunately, the numbers of Independent voters fed up with inept, irresponsible, and corrupt politicians are growing. There is hope.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 17, 2007 12:52 PM
Comment #226688


Until Republicans will vote to abolish them, earmarks will exist and Democrats will take advantage of the same means Republicans do. This is like Republicans decided on special rules for a game of monopoly and then start complaining when other players use them. Wow, we voted for a means of raising money to be legal and those damn Democrats are now using it to raise money. Gimme a break.

Posted by: Max at July 17, 2007 5:54 PM
Comment #226699


Do you think earmarks are good?


Nobody wants to get rid of SS. In order to save the concept, we will need to change the details and allow private accounts etc.

Posted by: Jack at July 17, 2007 8:30 PM
Comment #226706

This column has many Republican supporters dating back years calling for an end to entitlement spending, Jack. To say nobody wants to get rid of SS is just plain false.

Private savings accounts are for people who can afford private savings, Jack. Millions currently and soon to be on Soc. Soc. cannot afford to put sufficient private savings away to keep them out of poverty and in private health care insurance in their retirement and or disabled years.

Your (Bush’s) plan is absurd on its face: It requires one to be willing to dismiss all those I mention, as already dead and just not lain down yet. Your idea for S.S. utterly fails to address the problem.

And Medicare is by far the graver economic problem facing the nation’s economic future. No ideas there? No private health care savings accounts? As if electing poverty now to save for poverty later is a solution to the Medicare problem for the millions who can’t afford medical care or health insurance in the first place?

Telling people to just get money, is a very dangerous recommendation to social order and law and order. Unless legal means to obtain sufficient quantities is also offered.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 18, 2007 12:33 AM
Comment #226716


Fundamentally I oppose making the younger generation (my kids) pay big money for the older generation (me) so that I can retire w/o having to save or plan sufficiently. My opinion is not based on greed. On the contrary, I am willing to give up some of what I could have.

We need to address this problem on several fronts. Some people can not, will not or did not take care of themselves. We have to provide a safety net for them. MOST people can save and WILL if they have proper incentives. My goal is for the most possible people not to NEED SS.

I think we can do this with a conbination of incentives to save (private accounts) and the saftety net for those who cannot, will not or did not save. It is not a radical idea.

SS was set up in 1935 to address a different set of social issues. Back then, people were really poor in the existential sense. Today people are poor in the relative sense. Back then, we had many workers per recipient. Today we have few. Back then retirement age was 65 and the life expectancy was 63. Today retirement is (what?) 66 and life expectancy is nearly 80.

I do not think you would want to rely on a car, airplane or medical device from 1935. Why trust your retirement to such an outdated system?

Posted by: Jack at July 18, 2007 8:55 AM
Comment #226809

I just wish I owned a 1935 stock Brazen Hussey roadster. It would be worth a mil.
“Bach then people were really poor…”nonsense is not to far from complainning about all the money spent to fix y2k. See there was no problem. The reason we do not see many poor seniors begging on the streets is because of SS.NO other reason.One does see this while traveling to other countries that do not have similar programs and we had that here. Every town had the poor house were those either not wise enough or not lucky enough would end their days in squaler.Do you really want to go back to that?By weakening SS that is exactly what you are proposeing.

Posted by: BillS at July 18, 2007 10:52 PM
Comment #226852

Jack, we agree. Altering the SS and Medicare programs cannot be avoided if they are to be salvaged as safety nets. Private savings accounts are fine provided they DON’T undermine the safety nets.

The problem with Bush’s plan, which the American people saw readily, was that his private savings accounts would exempt private savers from underwriting the social safety net. Exempting private savers from the absolutely necessary taxation needed to support the safety net, was illogical and would result in the collapse of the safety net’s ability to provide for those without means.

Some of government’s decisions throw families and people out of work, and out of the middle class. Not intentionally, usually, but, it happens, a lot. The government has created the conditions through its trade agreements to allow the export of good paying jobs overseas, without compensatory gains to be reaped by those unemployed and reemployed at lower wages, for example.

Safety net programs require funding. Bush’s plan called for those who cannot afford private savings plans to fund their own public safety net programs. It was absurd on its face. And the American people rejected it out of hand.

Those who can afford private savings must also contribute to safety net which will save them as well should their fortunes be lost. In that regard the Social Security system needs to remain intact. However, it makes no sense for the program to provide benefits to the wealthy. Nor does it make sense for the program to fund early retirement when individual fitness and occupation would permit continuing in the work force.

Eligibility ages do need to be extended, and taxes need to increase - BUT only for the actuarial requirements of the program, NOT as a float for Congress to hide deficit spending.

But, the most dramatic and potentially beneficial change should be the taxpayers receiving a patent royalty for 30 years on any new product or technology which is developed from R&D funded by federal tax dollars. It is an idea whose time has come.

Medicare is more problematic, but, central to its reforms MUST be measures to lower the cost of health care in the U.S. The days of unlimited profitability by private health care companies at the expense of growing national debt must end.

Also, equally important is the requirement that that Medicare establish margin lines of cost/benefit procedure availability. Meaning, those receiving Medicare benefits, are entitled to established procedures whose benefits are reasonably assured, but, not entitled to cutting edge, experimental, and highest dollar procedures which have a less than 55% established statistical assurance of being curative or effective.

Finally, Medicare must address lifestyle issues which are proven to be contributory to future Medicare benefits dependency, like smoking, drinking and driving, or other high risk activities not related to employment, and decrement Medicare options for those who participate in such behaviors. This can be done humanely by providing assistance for high risk cessation programs and clinics allowing such people to reclaim decremented benefits by ending the risk behaviors by an actuarial age that would save Medicare additional expenses later in recipients life, for example. Combined with a lower limit of benefits for high risk behaviors, the public can have a realistic choice between capped Medicare benefits later for risky behaviors today, or applying for assistance to enter risk cessation programs early on in their adult lives if their income/insurance is insufficient to cover such cessation treatment.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 19, 2007 10:04 AM
Comment #226873

Pleeeease, Jack!,

You simply CANNOT honestly and honorably make this accusation without recognizing that the period of greatest PORK in our history was begun and continues under republicans. Both Bush and Congress.

Where is your sense of reality?
Or is it like I suspected all along -
Only a label game! Nothing matters so long as those in Washington call themselves ‘republican.’

Posted by: RGF at July 19, 2007 12:44 PM
Comment #226888

This is seriously misguided posting, Jack!

The republicans blew away ALL the pork records and now that the Democrats have been in just over half a year and you have shere GALL to throw this accusation out there?

Jack, you are a label-firster…perhaps even a label-only!

Posted by: RGF at July 19, 2007 3:17 PM
Comment #226903

RGF, critique Jack’s commentary, NOT Jack himself. This will be your only caution before comment privileges are revoked.

Posted by: Watchblog Managing Editor at July 19, 2007 5:44 PM
Comment #226924

“The reason we do not see many poor seniors begging on the streets is because of SS. NO other reason.One does see this while traveling to other countries that do not have similar programs and we had that here. Every town had the poor house were those either not wise enough or not lucky enough would end their days in squaler.Do you really want to go back to that?By weakening SS that is exactly what you are proposeing.”
Posted by: BillS at July 18, 2007 10:52 PM


Maybe the reason why we do not see the elderly begging in the streets anymore is because:

“Three years after the launch of the most aggressive nationwide strategy in a generation to solve homelessness, there is evidence that it may be working: The number of street people in cities across the United States has plummeted for the first time since the 1980s.
The drop-off reflected in street counts of the homeless taken over the past year has ranged from 30 percent in Miami and 28 percent in Dallas to 20 percent in Portland, Ore., and 13 percent in New York. In all, 30 jurisdictions reported declines in their homeless populations, including the 28 percent dip recorded in San Francisco a year ago and a 4 percent drop reported this week in Denver.
The figures emerged as more than 250 civic and social program leaders — all of whom are behind 10-year plans to end chronic homelessness across the nation — gathered in Denver last week to compare notes for the first time since the Bush administration began pushing for creation of the plans in 2003. They all agreed on at least two things.
One, they need more funding, especially at a time when federal allocations to fight poverty overall — such as Section 8 vouchers that help the poor with partial rent payments — are dipping. But they also agreed that even in that tough economic climate, the 216 cities and counties and 53 states and territories that are pursuing 10-year plans seem to be making headway toward easing the nation’s homelessness crisis by focusing more tightly on the most pressing problems.
The plummeting homeless counts, taken in one-day tallies in shelters and streets at varying dates across the country, are “not an aberration,” Philip Mangano, executive director of the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness, said in an address to the National Summit for Jurisdictional Leaders. “They are part of a national trend.”
“San Francisco, like many other cities, had been a case study for 20 years in zigzagging on the problem, lurching from tactic to tactic every few years,” said Trotz, who oversees Direct Access to Housing, a city program lauded and copied all over the country for its success in housing and counseling severely disabled homeless people. “But now we think we know what works — housing first, supportive housing.
“And the limited success we’re seeing now is a testament to staying the course.”
(From the San Francisco Chronicle 2006)

Wow! Even the San Francisco Chronicle is applauding the Bush Administration in their efforts to end homelessness. Has anybody heard the Mainstream News Networks talking about the Homeless lately? Didn’t think so! I wonder why that is? Maybe so as not to give the Bush Administration credit for helping cut homelessness by twenty to thirty percent in some parts of the nation? Yep, that must be it because the elderly poor and the Homeless were always such a “talked about problem”, with so little action in the Clinton 90’s.


Posted by: JD at July 20, 2007 1:09 AM
Comment #226948

Statistics, especially where things like homlelessness are concerned, are completely meaningless!

How can you possibly check or verify?
So the next logical question is who is trying to sell people on these particular statistics and why? !

Posted by: RGF at July 20, 2007 1:44 PM
Comment #226982

Yeah, RGF!

We all know how ultra-conservative the San Francisco Chronicle is, right?


Posted by: JD at July 20, 2007 9:17 PM
Comment #227025


Give it a rest, JD!

It isn’t about any particular source.

It is about the inherent impossibility of accurate or even close statististics regarding certain issues - like homelessness.

I don’t what the bias is or why with any particular source and I don’t care.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see the problem with statistics in general, and in particular with statistics on issues like homelessness!

Posted by: RGF at July 21, 2007 12:55 PM
Comment #227042

The more I think about the tag-line to this piece the more astonished I am at the effrontery of it.

After all we have seen between the “Contract with America” BS from Gingrich’s era, to the current lot leading up to the VERY recent taking back of control in Congress by the Democrats,

it just blows my mind that any republican would have the gall to throw out an accusation of anybody esle at all being the party the “party of power and plutocrats.”

There has never been, in all of American History, a more fiscally irresponsible bunch of corrupt power brokers than Bush and the yes-man congress he only oh so recently lost!

It really blows my mind, Jack, that you even offer this piece. I may not like your politics, but I have thought better of you. Where is the recognition of your own party’s responsibilities (read: irresponsibilities)?

Posted by: RGF at July 21, 2007 5:24 PM
Comment #227083

“Last month, McCaskill received $4,600 from Missouri-based beer giant Anheuser-Busch, Inc. She also received $4,600 from Busch Entertainment Corp., $4,600 from Busch Media Group, Inc., $4,600 from Busch Properties, Inc., $2,000 from Anheuser Busch Packaging Group and $4,600 from Busch Agricultural Resources, Inc., according to a quarterly report filed with the Missouri Ethics Commission.
Those contributions would be barred under federal law. But the Federal Election Commission ruled earlier this year that federal restrictions don’t apply to McCaskill’s effort to recover old state campaign debt.
The FEC previously allowed federal lawmakers to raise money for state campaigns under state law. McCaskill’s situation is somewhat unique because the money is going to pay herself back for an old debt. In all, McCaskill raised $131,300 over the last three months from corporations, unions, individuals and political action committees.”

Boy, talk about quick work turning on the cash vacuum! She’s been in Congress less time than the money-gulping Barack Obama, and she’s not even running for President!


Posted by: JD at July 22, 2007 10:52 AM
Comment #227089

Money buys influence, JD. It always has since ROME and even before, I’m sure. That is nothing new.

It also crosses all party lines. Greed is a human problem!

That is why the immigration issue was such a farsical distraction issue. There is just too much money backing the republicans that is invested in the status quo for anything to change. However, it isn’t about the republicans, it’s about the status quo. Such backing would shift so quickly and so completely, if necessary, to buy the necessary result from any party.

I’m sure the libertarians would not be exempt if they should suddenly and inexplicably achieve enough representation in Congress. Influence is money and money is influence.

But let’s get to the quick here -
You pulled your information from some source that found it necessary to point this out about a Democrat.

Have you even made the mental effort to ask yourself, WHY?

Posted by: RGF at July 22, 2007 1:18 PM
Comment #227112

“But let’s get to the quick here -
You pulled your information from some source that found it necessary to point this out about a Democrat.
Have you even made the mental effort to ask yourself, WHY?”
Posted by: RGF at July 22, 2007 01:18 PM

My source was the AP and ABC News. Not exactly ultra-conservative media there!

Yes, I have paused to ask myself why they are now running these stories about Democrats. It is because the Democrats’ entire 2006 campaign was about fixing the “culture of corruption” in Washington politics and once elected have been diving into the mud just as filthily, greedily, and with “squeals of joy” comparable to any Republican Porker they all so eagerly villified. Democrats are now in power, which means they are the ones being watched. Consequently, they are the ones now being accused of running a 2006 campaign of lies, smear, and public deceit!


Posted by: JD at July 22, 2007 4:37 PM
Comment #227117


As I pointed out to you in the bit on Sicilian Eagle’s piece on Spiro Agnew, our media is conservatively biased.

You proved both of my points by offering this source!

Posted by: RGF at July 22, 2007 4:41 PM
Post a comment