Business groups and lobbyists taking more of an interest in the Virginia Democratic Party. If you're a liberal, you can't help but be excited when the smart money switches to less conservative politicians. On the other hand, as we saw when Democrats decided to defend the rights of hedge fund managers to preferential tax treatment the depressing reality is that this sort of campaign cash switcheroo seems to work pretty well. Democrats aren't nearly as willing to sell out to wealthy interests as the GOP is, but they're pretty willing.
« Power | Main | A McCain Surge? »
Follow the Money
10 Oct 2007 12:35 am
Comments (16)
Democrats aren't nearly as willing to sell out to wealthy interests as the GOP is, but they're pretty willing.
As somebody commenting on another blog said, the Democrat vs. Republican thing really is beginning to feel like a "good cop / bad cop" routine.
Edwards and the pork farmer river polluters. Murtha and the defense contractors. Byrd and the coal mine owners. So good and yet so...bad.
But even highly compromised Dems will give us a Supreme court that better upholds the Constitution.
Corruption and weakness in Congress is more threatening to the whole system of checks and balances than when any of the other branches go off the tracks.
Well said, Matthew.
Edwards and the pork farmer river polluters. Murtha and the defense contractors. Byrd and the coal mine owners. So good and yet so...bad.
But even highly compromised dems will give us a Supreme court that better upholds the Constitution.
Corruption and weakness in Congress is more threatening to the system of checks and balances than when any of the other branches go off the tracks.
"But even highly compromised Dems will give us a Supreme court that better upholds the Constitution."
Care to explicate? Which parts of the Constitution will Dem appointees do a better job of upholding?
Juan: Just off the top of my head, I'd say the Dems will probably do a better job on the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments. I can provide details if you like.
Jesse Unruh, legendary California politician:
On campaign contributions - “Money is the mother’s milk of politics”
On lobbyists - “If you can’t eat their food, drink their booze, screw their hookers and still vote against them the next morning you don’t belong in politics”
Re: Care to explicate? Which parts of the Constitution will Dem appointees do a better job of upholding?
The whole thing. See: Justice Ginsberg vs Justice Thomas. Or Justice Beyer vs Justice Scalia. That should enlighten you. And as I said on another blog, Quit stirring up apathy. There are huge differnces between the Democrats and GOP and next year's election matters very much. Just because the Democratic candidates do not have halos around their heads does not mean that they are not vastly different (and better) than the Republicans.
There are huge differnces between the Democrats and GOP and next year's election matters very much. Just because the Democratic candidates do not have halos around their heads does not mean that they are not vastly different (and better) than the Republicans.
Ehhhh. If Obama or Edwards win and we get out of Iraq, maybe you have a point. If Clinton wins the nomination, the differences are only a matter of degrees. We'll still get some pretty awful foreign policy, and a fairly corrupt - though perhaps not as corrupt - domestic politics. Maybe the courts will be different, but then the Republicans were pretty effective in the 1990s at keeping nominees off the bench, so maybe not.
I think you'll see a lot of apathy if it's a Clinton vs. match-up.
If Clinton wins the nomination, the differences are only a matter of degrees.
That's the same Naderite nonsense that got us in this mess in the first place. Have you learned nothing the last 7 years?
Paul Simonon - I'll grant you that Clinton's a corporate moneycrat, and there's no point in expecting her to give much pushback against corporate America. And she'll continue to be a national security hawk, and will leave more troops in Iraq for longer than we'd like.
But she won't be crazy. She's not going to make up reasons to bomb Iraq or Syria. She will try to reduce the level of tensions in the region, rather than keep things stirred up so she can run on fear, the way the GOP does.
She won't appoint flaming liberals to the courts, but she will appoint moderate Dems, not Federalist Society members.
She will be pretty good on bread-and-butter issues - minimum wage, protecting Social Security, expanding access to healthcare though I doubt she'll get all the way to universal coverage.
I'm not much of a Hillary fan - I'd much rather have Edwards be the Dem nominee. But valid criticisms of her record and the stands she's taking (or not) now will do a hell of a lot more to convince people than a bunch of BS.
"As somebody commenting on another blog said, the Democrat vs. Republican thing really is beginning to feel like a "good cop / bad cop" routine."
At least somebody gets it.
That's the same Naderite nonsense that got us in this mess in the first place. Have you learned nothing the last 7 years?
Yeah. That after SIX years of the worst administration in the last century (at least), the "opposition" party STILL can't even lucidly discuss -- let alone oppose -- the biggest crimes of the Cheney gangster syndicate. The party of Harry and Nan and Hillary and ol' Tom Daschle (his spirit lives!) is an embarrassment, and by now pretty much entirely complicit in those same crimes. So why are you so slow on the uptake?
Speaking as a Virginian, if all we get from a Democratic takeover is that our state legislature wastes less of its time trying to effectively outlaw gays and Muslims and immigrants and abortions and sex, and stops devising cockamamie schemes of "fees" that they pretend will pay for critical government services so they can go back to their wingnut base and tell them they've never, ever raised any tax, and they actually get the state budget done on time because the party in charge doesn't have sane and insane wings who have a poisonous stalemate, then even if they're about equally pro-business (and they won't be), it'll be a big step forward.
That's the same Naderite nonsense that got us in this mess in the first place. Have you learned nothing the last 7 years?
Ehh. Look, I'll vote for any Democrat over any Republican, except I'd vote for Ron Paul (on antiwar grounds) over someone like Clinton.
But just because I'd end up voting for Clinton, doesn't mean I have to be enthusiastic about it. I mean, we are talking about someone whose hawkishness is only eclipsed by Bush and most of the Republicans. That's not a great record, but in this country, it'll have to do until I scratch together enough cash and move to Canada or New Zealand or something.
Comments closed October 24, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Traditionally the difference was that each Dem had one industry that he or she sold out to - Conyers and auto, Biden and credit cards, Harkin and agribusiness - while the the Repubs sold out to everyone all the time.
Posted by Bloix | October 10, 2007 12:48 AM