In the latest episode of Democrats are from Venus, Republicans are from Mars, both Matt Yglesias and Josh Marshall discuss the fact that Soros is pouring millions into Democratic causes. In Matt’s words:
I’m not thrilled about the Democrats’ increasing reliance on a small number of super-rich people to finance our operation because, obviously, it does influence the party’s ability to really operate as an independent mass movement.
Josh discusses the influence of Scaife’s money, as discussed in a WaPo editorial:
whoever wrote this clunker needs to familiarize themselves with Mr. Scaife’s giving to myriad conservative causes (think tanks, publications, pressure groups, etc.) throughout the 1990s, and before, and since.
Those of course contributed significantly to the Republican victories in 2002, and in other elections — just as Democrats hope that Soros’ largesse will contribute to hoped-for future triumphs.
The problem is, most Republicans don’t care how much money Soros dumps into Democratic causes. What we find amusing is that Democrats have spent years villifying money in politics, all the while having large donors quietly fill their coffers. Add to that the influence of the unions, the NAACP, NOW, and all the other interest groups that operate as a third wing of the DNC, and the Democratic party really is not suffering in the money game. And then, they suffer from dramatic memory loss when they attack Bush for smashing all the fundraising records, conveniently forgetting whose records he has broken.
All that is going on now is that the Republicans have a face to paint on the big money- one that goes along well with the Streisand’s and other multi-millionaires that have been long feeding the Democratic party. If I detect anything, it is a little bit of embarassment. As far as I am concerned, Soros can give every penny in his fortune to the DNC and their puppet organizations- just as long as it is disclosed.
And please, can we quit pretending the Democrats are hurting for money? Has anyone bothered to calculate the money raised by the nine dwarves?
Kimmitt
If you call the ten major Democratic Presidential candidates, which include a retired general, a veteran of the Vietnam War, the first black female Senator elected in US history — and most of them longtime dedicated public servants — “the nine [sic] dwarves,” I humbly submit that complaining when the President is referred to as “aWol” or any other perjorative is somewhat hypocritical.
Whether or not you agree with them or like their chances, these men (and woman) have collectively put in decades of public and military service.*
*granted, some more than others.
John Cole
Holy loads of professionally sensitive twaddle, and a nice way to doge the whole point of the post. Would you prefer the four contenders and the five pretenders?
The nine dwarves is not some personal insult, and it is a lay on the seven dwarves from the 1988 election. I am sorry it offended your delicate sensibilities.
Kimmitt
I didn’t have much to say about the substance of your post; campaign finance is recondite and strange.
scarshapedstar
Maybe Democrats would be happier if you mentioned that Dean completely breaks the mold – anyone remember that chart where “Man of the People” Bush had most of his campaign contributions in the $1000-plus-per-contributor range, whereas Dean, the unelectable, out-of-touch raving Communist who alienates everyone with his constant, ill-informed, stupid, retarded ad hominem attacks on our fine President (for the irony-impaired, yes, that’s irony) got most of his from the $100-or-lower range?
Yeah, I think that’s interesting.
Matthew Stinson
If you look at the demographics of the 2004 cycle donors, the most interesting thing is that while Dean leads in the percentage of contributions gained from ~$200 givers, Bush has roughly 2.5 times as many comparable donations coming to his campaign.
Thus, while Dean might be getting his support from the “little guy” on the left, Bush is getting support from the “little guy” on the right as well as small business owners and other large-scale contributors.
drew
Bush is getting this wide range of support of one reason, HE IS THE ONLY CANDIDATE ON THE RIGHT. No other reason, I fail to see your point.
Matthew Stinson
Sigh. My point is that the right has small contributors also, and all the talk of Dean’s “small contributor base” obscures the fact that it’s dwarfed by W’s.
Kimmitt
I think the idea is that said small contributors on the Left did not really exist until recently — that Dean has galvanized the Left into a new mode of contribution.
Dean
Kimmitt:
If the small conthributors on the Left didn’t exist until the ’04 cycle, then where the )#$*&#!)%# does the Left get off claiming that THEY’RE the party of the “little guy,” that their contributions come from smaller givers, etc.?
Kimmitt
I know this may be hard to believe, but in a democracy, people have these things called “votes,” which are different from things called “dollars.” One major part of this is that each person gets only one “vote,” while individual persons get wildly different numbers of “dollars.” So a Party which collected the “votes” of people who did not have a lot of “dollars” could state that they are the Party of the Little Guy.
Alternately, since the Dems are the Party of things like workplace safety, free clean air, and civil rights for everyone, they could lay claim to the title based on their policies, too.
To put it into yet a third way, Dean has found a way to convince Leftists that $100 contributions are meaningful and an important part of the political process.
John Cole
One major part of this is that each person gets only one “vote,” while individual persons get wildly different numbers of “dollars.” So a Party which collected the “votes” of people who did not have a lot of “dollars” could state that they are the Party of the Little Guy.
People who vote for Democrats are littler than people who vote for Republicans?
Alternately, since the Dems are the Party of things like workplace safety, free clean air, and civil rights for everyone, they could lay claim to the title based on their policies, too.
Personally, I like dirty air, a dangerous workplace, and an overall repudiation and rejection of civil rights.
Quit regurgitating this simpistic boilerplate agitprop, Kimmitt. You are starting to sound like Barney Gumble.
Kimmitt
“Personally, I like dirty air, a dangerous workplace, and an overall repudiation and rejection of civil rights.”
It’s not that you don’t like them. It’s that other issues are more important to you, so you go along with the things you don’t like to get the things you do. You’ve posted various invectives aimed at Patriot Act abuses, and you must be aware of Bush’s abysmal environmental record. That is less important to you, however, than supporting, say, the Iraq war.
It’s kind of like me and Hate Crimes legislation. I’m not a big fan of Hate Crimes legislation; however, it’s not all that important to me, so I vote for people and institutions which are for it despite our differences. The difference between us is that you’re pretty boned — unless Lieberman gets the nod, there aren’t a lot of decent politicians who don’t come down against the environment, civil rights, and workplace safety and for private healthcare provision (for example) and the war in Iraq.
John Cole
The difference between us is that you’re pretty boned — unless Lieberman gets the nod, there aren’t a lot of decent politicians who don’t come down against the environment, civil rights, and workplace safety and for private healthcare provision (for example) and the war in Iraq.
The arrogance of these assumptions is breathtaking. Go look up the fallacy of the false dichotomy. Not seeing eye to eye with every Democrat on environmental issues does not make you “Against the environment.” Jeebus. You guys really do think you have the only damned answer for everything.
Kimmitt
Of course not, but this particular President and this particular set of Federal Republican leadership are very much against clean air, clean water, and various other environmental protections. This isn’t ANWR, which for all its importance, is on the other side of the damn continent. This is California having to fight to retain its antismog regulations. This is other states who were thinking about following California’s lead being Federally barred from doing so. This is about allowing coal-fired power plants to belch more particulate matter into the air. This is about allowing more arsenic in our drinking water, and it’s about redacting EPA reports when they say things the President doesn’t want the American public hearing.
This President is not an environmentalist, and I should think that would be obvious.
John Cole
but this particular President and this particular set of Federal Republican leadership are very much against clean air, clean water, and various other environmental protections.
Please try to argue honestly. This president and this set of Republican leadership are not against clean air and water. They differ with you and how much, how to, and what the trade-offs are for regulation. That does not make them against it.
For example- I think we will both agree that if we really wanted super duper pure untouched air, we would en all industry, end all combustion engines, and never burn any fuel oils, wood, etc. Are you in favor of that?
Of course you aren’t, and neither am I. Would I be arguing in good faith that since you don’t want to stop all these activities that you are ‘against clean air and clean water?”
I believe I would be arguing in bad faith, just as these infantile proclamations that president Bush is against clean air. Why don’t you just bust out the battle-tested ‘Bush is putting arsenic in your drinking water’ bullshit while you are at it?
Dean
Uh, John? He did.
From Kimmitt’s previous post:
>>This is about allowing more arsenic in our drinking water
Slartibartfast
That’s just absurd. It was never about “allowing more arsenic in our drinking water”. It was about arbitrarily lowering allowable arsenic levels to the point where some communities would be deprived of any fresh water at all, because their water didn’t pass arsenic standards. Arguing this issue qualitatively is intellectually dishonest, Kimmitt. Either cite an indisputable study concluding that the Clinton levels of arsenic are the maximum permissible levels, or put a sock in it.
It’s not as if any quantity at all will kill you. Anything at all, if taken in excess, can kill you. Arsenic is just a vehicle for more anti-Bush hysteria.
Kimmitt
Here’s my problem:
1) The EPA set some level for arsenic which they viewed as the maximum which people really ought to consume in their water, all risks considered. I have no scientific background with which to gainsay this decision.
2) There are a few communities dotted across the American landscape for which reducing risk to the level stated would be extremely expensive.
3) Rather than grant those few communities a waiver from the law, the Administration sought to change the law for every community, even those which could reduce the risk to acceptable levels with a reasonable investment of water cleaning.
“They differ with you and how much, how to, and what the trade-offs are for regulation.”
As a theoretical perspective, I can see this, but I simply cannot get past the fact that the Administration redacts scientific reports which might provide arguments for opponents of its policies. If you are preventing basic information from reaching the body politic, you no longer are making judgements on costs and benefits — you are denying the existence of the costs.
Slartibartfast
Certainly, there’s no certainty even within the EPA regarding what constitutes allowable arsenic levels.
There’s all kinds of bad science surrounding health effects. This is what happens when science issues become politicised. I’m sure that cuts both ways, but the basic idea that science and politics have become intermingled still stands. I don’t even care who started it.