| The Democrats should look at the Massachusetts senate special election and learn from it. A way is shown how to hold back the tide in the mid-term elections and to possibly gain seats. |  |
Democrats must get off their high horses and take nothing for granted. The Democrats took a win for granted in the Massachusetts senate race. The candidate, Martha Coakley, didn’t campaign enough, and the White House and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, assumed that the “Kennedy” seat was safe for Democrats for the next fifty years. The party leaders were not observant. The Democratic Party’s national establishment institutions did not provide the resources to match the massive influx of funds and spending on the behalf of the GOP candidate by the Tea Partiers and other out-of-state right-wing groups.
Celinda Lake, the Coakley’s pollser, said the Coakley “campaign had no money, ” and requests for money were routinely turned down. When asked for financial assistance, over-confident party officials told Ms. Coakley, “You don’t need it.” (link)
The National Democrats must provide the resources to assist candidates, and keep a watchful eye, and consider every seat a contest.
Democrats must tie the GOP, and every GOP candidate, to the Tea Party. Although, during the Massachusetts campaign, Scott Brown solicited and accepted money from out-of-state right wingers and Tea Partiers, he tried to distance himself from them. He claimed at one time that he didn’t even know what the Tea Party was. In most of his campaign literature, he even hid the GOP label. He ran on the Republican line, but campaigned as an independent minded candidate, who would speak to issues raised by the disaffected voters, who are upset with the sluggish economy and the cute games being played by the White House and by the Senate leadership on the issue of health reform. The Democratic campaign did not provide their candidate with the resources to remind the voters of Mr. Brown’s right-wing and Tea Party connection.
The Tea Party, itself is full with infighting. Tea Party activists are calling each other con men “making money off the passions of others. ” (link)
The Tea Party convention is to be held in early February “at a fancy resort, features $550 ticket prices, a steak and lobster dinner and a guest speaker with a $125,000 speaking fee. It’s sponsored by a for-profit company with a mysterious wealthy owner, and its organizers, who have been accused of secrecy and corruption, have threatened lawsuits against dissenters and clamped down on news coverage.” (link)
Sarah Palin who is the tea party convention’s star attraction, is reportedly, to be paid $125, 000 to speak at the event. The more the American public is exposed to Ms. Palin, the more of a political liability she becomes. A recent CBS News poll found that a large majority of Americans have an unfavorable opinion of former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin. (link) Right wingers are the only ideological group that holds net positive views of Ms Palin — just under half do, while a quarter are unfavorable and a quarter of the right-wing conservatives are undecided on her.
Democrats need to remind voters that GOP leaders like Mrs. Palin, Michael Steele and others, do not represent the hopes and aspirations of the vast majority of the American people. Mrs. Palin and other right-wing GOP leaders, who enter the campaign trail for Congressional candidates should become part of the conversation to defeat the candidates that they support.
In summary, the Democrats must fight. The GOP, and its activists have been fighting since the day after the election in November, 2008. They have targeted Mr. Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. The Democrats must target the GOP, the Tea Party and GOP blow hearts whose vision for America is the wrong vision. Of course, the Democrats must get back to their roots. When the Democrats supported the public option for health care reform, the people supported health care reform. When the Democrats started playing Washington games to get votes, and dropped the issues that appealed to the American people, public support for the Democrats wavered. To hold the tide and to push back, the Democrats must return to their progressive program, and must spend the resources necessary to remind the people the GOP, the right-wing, the Tea Party are just plain wrong on the issues.
The 2012 Presidential Election is fast approaching
The GOP race is now a field of 4 with only Romney, Gingrich, Paul, & Santorum still standing. Who will be the next candidate to exit the race & who will emerge as the eminent GOP nominee?
Follow us on Twitter & join our 2012 election FaceBook page for updates & new blog articles.
Contact us if you are passionate about politics & want to blog with us.
{ 42 comments… read them below or add one }
“That brought to 15 the number of bank failures so far in 2010 atop the 140 shuttered last year in the punishing economic climate.”
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20100130/D9DHQO980.html
That’s the rocovery for you… and it’s only January.
Spin? Facts are facts. And you provide as much “spin” as the rest of us my friend. What you wrongfully call spin, I call opinion. Which is all any of us do here anyway. And as always, you are most welcome to your opinion.
Consti Tution,
I don’t accept your spin on articles. We disagree on most things, but there a few things we do agree on.
Ben, you wrote :”I’m going to have to think about whether or not to respond to any more of your articles or even to comment on any comment you’ve made.”
Ben , that is your choice.
Ben continued:
“It’s impossible to argue logic w/ an ideologue. And you, my friend, are the epitome of one. ”
An ideologue? No. A person who discuss ideas? Yes.
For you to say that my arguments aren’t logic is very funny.
DFunzy
I can only lead the Mule to watter… I’d spend the time providing you links to show you, but I doubt it would make a difference. The only further thing I am going to say is you are wrong in your last comment completely. Obama fully supported the tactics of ACORN and the SEIU. Not condemming it is condoning it. And both SEIU and ACORN have called for their members to disrupt meetings.
OBAMA: I’ve spent my entire adult life working with SEIU. I’m not a newcomer to this.
THEN-PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE BARACK OBAMA: We’re going to have to change the culture in Washington so that lobbyists and special interests aren’t driving the process and your voices aren’t being drowned out.
SEIU ANDY STERN: The question is how is everyone going to share in the wealth? And I think that after we get through this health care situation and finally solve this problem of 223 years, you know, we are going to see a change in our labor laws.
http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/obamas-seiu-union-thugs-beat-a-black-man-at-a-town-hall-meating-calls-for-investigations-into-obam/question-545761/?link=ibaf‘
d – I’m going to have to think about whether or not to respond to any more of your articles or even to comment on any comment you’ve made. It’s impossible to argue logic w/ an ideologue. And you, my friend, are the epitome of one.
I repeat “Did Omaba call for his supporters to disrupt meetings? No. Did he call upon them to shut down discussion? No. Did he call on them to force speakers to leave the stage? No. The tea party activists did all of those things and called on it members to do those things. Those are brownshirt tactics.”
Omaba did not use brownshirt tactics and neither he nor the Democratic party embrace those tactics. The Tea Party did and the GOP embraced the Tea Party activists. Also people were bussed to those meetings as a reaction to the Tea Party’s activities. That reaction resulted in the Tea Party changing its tactics.
In the words of Rodney King; “Can’t we all just get along?”
“Those are brownshirt tactics. The shame belong with those who would stop free speech, by disrupting meetings and shutting down debate.”
Oh please and the SEIU wasn’t bussing people in during the town halls! HA! Again trying to pin tactics that are used by both parties on just one. Need I mention code pink disrupting congress? How about the woman with red pain on her hands in the face of Condoleezza Rice? You just don’t like it because they are using old Democratic Activist tactics against you. And frankly it’s about time fire was fought with fire. Never mind the tea party didn’t inflict PHYSICAL DAMGE like SEIU thugs did. You can condone beating a man or biting off a finger because he sells anti-Obama paraphernalia but not people getting “rowdy”? That’s just sick. For shame.
Consti Tution wrote’” You know better than that.You make a brash statement about the Tea Party being “brown shirts” and completely ignore Obama calling for the same thing. ”
Consti Tution, please? You know better than that.
Did Omaba call for his supporters to disrupt meetings? No. Did he call upon them to shut down discussion? No. Did he call on them to force speakers to leave the stage? No. The tea party activists did all of those things and called on it members to do those things. Those are brownshirt tactics. The shame belong with those who would stop free speech, by disrupting meetings and shutting down debate.
Also several of the brownshirt leaders were paid activists, and worked full time on recruitment and organization.
“If you remember, all of the protests weren’t peaceful. The early protests were rude, rowdy events.”
Not to step into your conversation with Ben, however, at least the members weren’t biting fingers off of old men like that SEIU guy. Or beating up old men selling stickers and buttons. Give me rude and rowdy over blatant violence any time. Rude posters I can handle, taking a physical beating for your beliefs isn’t politics. Not in this country.
You make a brash statement about the Tea Party being “brown shirts” and completely ignore Obama calling for the same thing. The beliefs may be different but the concept is the same. If you know your history you will also know that the brown shirts were volunteers. It’s a shame you think such thoughts about your fellow Americans and THEIR right to freel speach.
Your partisan slip is showing
Consti Tution,
wrote: “BTW I look forward to your clarification on the Tea Party. ”
The “Tea Party” movement is more than just the out spoken activists. There is a real need for the concerns of the rank in file members to be addressed and the Washington establishment is not addressing those needs. And though I dismiss the activists as paid hustlers, I do understand why the Tea Party” is attractive to many of its members. More on this later, my thoughts are percolating.
Ben,
You described the behavior of street agitators. Some of the violent protesters against Bush were self-confessed anarchists, not liberals and not democrats. They also protested against Clinton, the World Bank and whatever else.
I wrote, “the Tea Party activists are no better than brownshirts in their tactics and in the depth of their ideas.”
If you remember, all of the protests weren’t peaceful. The early protests were rude, rowdy events. The Tea Partiers tactic was not to engage in debate, but to shout down the other side, to disrupt town hall meetings and to force the leaders to exit. These are classic Brownshirts tactics. Many of the so-called peaceful protest rallies were full of hate signs , with racial and anti-Jewish slurs, and sscapegoating, blaming the problems on a man who had then just arrived on the job. This is classic brownshirting. Then the Brownshirts demand ideological purity. Did I write Brownshirts? — Tea Partiers. The tea party is not just this grandmother, who its supporters keep trying to brand itself as, it is made of calculating activists who used shock tactics to get attention, and who appealed to the baser instincts of some of our fellow citizenry. That doesn’t mean that every rank and file member is a brownshirter. By no means. Many are just angry and unhappy people — many justifiably so — who are stirred up by the economic conditions of the times, and by a distant government in Washington, who they feel is not listening to them.
Dfunzy,
“because he is not a miracle man who can solve all the problems in the economy overnight.” That’s what we were sold in the election! Super O remember? “Obama’s gonna pay my gas bill!” look that up on the web it’s a hilarious video! And since for the past year they dickered with Healthcare instead of the jobs of course they are “just now” getting started. Had the Democrats in congress focused on jobs and the economy instead of trying to force Healthcare we would be having a different conversation.
“The truth is, the Tea Party activists are no better than brown shirts in their tactics and in the depth of their ideas.” Really? You went the Hitler route? I got news for you the One wanted “a large volunteer army as well funded and as well equipped as the military.” Sounds like brown shit mentality to me. And lets get it correct… it’s not Brown it’s purple. (SEIU) You know the special interest union group that has the most visits to the White House of anyone. Mr. Andy Stern and Obama are homies yo.
OBAMA: I’ve spent my entire adult life working with SEIU. I’m not a newcomer to this.
THEN-PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE BARACK OBAMA: We’re going to have to change the culture in Washington so that lobbyists and special interests aren’t driving the process and your voices aren’t being drowned out.
BTW I look forward to your clarification on the Tea Party.
Brownshirts? Peaceful protests and you say they are no better than brownshirts?
What in the world would you call the liberal/democrat activists who protested GWB at every turn, including burning him in effigy, trying to storm the buildings where meetings were being held, rioting in the streets, etc? Wouldn’t they truly be the brownshirts?
Consti Tution,
You say you are not excusing Bush, but then you pile the whole mess on Obama and rail against him because he is not a miracle man who can solve all the problems in the economy overnight. Yes, he’s had a year. A year is only enough time to effect a beginning for an improvement.
As for the Tea Party, I have mixed feelings about their early demise. I won’t discuss them all here, but will lay them out in future posts and comments. The truth is, the Tea Party activists are no better than brownshirts in their tactics and in the depth of their ideas. They are capable of making noise, shaking pols up, but not of forming a viable plan for governing. They probably are just what their financial backers wanted, shock troops to battle in the streets for the financial backers interests.
Dfunzy,
Excuse Bush? Oh no no no… You should know better than that. His administration played its part no doubt. However it’s been Obama’s ball for over a year now and congresses since 2006. You are above trying to take cheap shots like that last comment. And no the tea party won’t produce a candidate. There hasn’t been a viable 3rd party candidate since Forbes in my opinion. If you recall I wrote a WHOLE article about the 3rd party. Perhaps a refresher? What the tea party really represents, (and you don’t seem to get) is an emerging sentiment among THE PUBLIC. (Are you a believer in the ravenous Republican gun toting granny?) I’ve talked to a couple Democrats that are in support of the movement. So again, you choose to underestimate or not fully comprehend the tea party since you would like to tie it to the Republicans as a tool in the midterms. In my humble opinion that is why you repeatedly try to claim it’s splintering.
Ben ,
Obama needs to sell his agenda better, get back to basic progressive values and quit playing cute, He needs to remind people that he has cut taxes for the middle class, that he got a jobs bill through the House, but because of Senate rules, forty Senators can block any legislation from passing the Senate, and the GOP has bottled up the House passed jobs bill.
I agree ” Obama’s re-election in 2012 is dependent … on how strong will his opponent be?”
THE GOP doesn’t have a strong candidate. The Tea Party is splintering.
I agree ” congressional seats aren’t a lock for the Dems in Nov 2010.” Usually, the party in power loses seats. Considering the Democrats large majority, they are expected to lose 20 to 30 seats easily. To keep the loss below 30 seats is how success or failure will be measured. To gain seats, though a possibility, would be a surprise.
Obama’s re-election in 2012 is dependent entirely on whether he can and will moderate his agenda and whether he gets back to where the rest of America is. Also, how strong will his opponent be? 2012 isn’t a lock for Obama, just as congressional seats aren’t a lock for the Dems in Nov 2010.
Consti Tution,
If you want to excuse Bush, continue and continue to cover your eyes. Be happy in your political blindness. One question: what are you going to say the day after election night 2012, when Obama wins a second term? ‘ Oh, I didn’t see that coming.”
As for Democrats fighting among themselves, when have there been a time when Democrats haven’t been fighting among themselves? The answer is never. Democrats love to fight among themselves. As I’ve said before, the Democratic Party is only imploding in your dreams. Your favs the Tea Party? Well, their tea pot is running dry.
Dfunzy,
You stated;”I think the Democratic were just over-confident in Massachusetts. As for the Democratic Party imploding, only in your dreams.”
Well I knew it was only a matter of time before we started seeing articles supporting my statement.
“”There have been growing signals lately of the infighting between House and Senate Democrats, with Clyburn having called the Senate a “House of Lords,” and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) maintaining that Democrats must attend to their “institutional responsibilities.”
As a party over-all the fast and furrious finger pointing is going to continue until midterms are decided.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/78719-clyburn-house-dems-do-not-trust-the-senate
WASHINGTON (AP) — The economy’s faster-than-expected growth at the end of last year, fueled by companies boosting output to keep stockpiles up, is likely to weaken as consumers keep a lid on spending.
Consumers consist of 70% of GDP. The slight increase is from business spending on equipment JUST to maintain. Meaning, this money would have been spent ANYWAY. I’d hardly call it a vicotry. Perhaps it’s just me but I would be impressd and therefor more hopeful if that spending increase came from consumers. When the people start spending again then the recovery will have taken hold.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Economy-likely-grew-faster-in-apf-3028347842.html?x=0&.v=9
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Economy-likely-grew-faster-in-apf-3028347842.html?x=0&.v=9
HAHA! Blame Bush. Yeah I heard the SOTU and the blame Bush BS… got news for you the Democratic congress was elected in 2006. THEY have been running things since. The Fed and Barney Fink pushed for toxic Fannie/Freddie loans. And the guy who allowed this to happen (Bernakie) was just allowed to keep his job. Sounds like the One has inherited Bush policy… and kept it. That isn’t the definition for “change” we were sold in the election.
Consti Tution,
The GNP is a very important indicator. A rising GNP in a down economy means that employers will need more workers and HIRING will begin. There will be more private sector jobs,.
Housing prices got way out of hand during the Bush years. Prices are hyper high and adjustments will have to be made. Also, high unemployment also contributes to a depressed housing market. It takes more than a year to dig out of the deep hole the Repubs dug for us during eight long years.
As far as the federal deficit, it is terrible. Did you hear the SOTU? Mr. Obama explained that Mr. Clinton left office with a $200 billion surplus.
Mr. Bush gave us $8 trillion deficit. Since Obama has been in office the deficit has gone up $1 trillion dollars. Money spent to keep the economy from falling into a depression. Bush left a deep recession and that meant lower revenue. Mr Obama CUT taxes on middle income families, so that people could keep more of their money during the recession, and that meant more monies for families, but less money for the federal Treasury. Mr. Obama spent money to keep police, firemen and teachers working in cash strapped cities. If he hadn’t spent that money cities, and the economy would be in worse shape.
Also, in concluding, let’s get back to the GNP. When you see a rising GNP, that means better days are coming.
Oh and the increase to the federal deficit is the LARGEST in history. Borrowing money long term to pay for now is exactly what got us in this mess in the first place.
There was a RECORD drop in home sales in December and they revised November since it was worse than reported. GDP doesn’t mean jack when people are still loosing homes and unemployed. It’s not GDP it’s jobs. Even Obama knows that.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/46067160-0b5f-11df-8232-00144feabdc0.html?nclick_check=1
Update: Good news for America. “Tea Party Convention is rapidly falling apart as Congressional right-wing favorites Michele Bachmann (R-MN) and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) announced Thursday they would no longer be in attendance. The event has split tea party groups around the country, with some claiming it is financially mismanaged and that its pricey $550 tickets and $125,000 speaking fee for Sarah Palin are beyond the pale. The convention controversy is just one example of Republicans
splintering over how to gain momentum.”
http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheat-sheet/item/michele-bachmann-ditches-tea-party-event/canceled/?cid=bsa:cheatsheet3
Update! Good economy news for the Democrats. “The U.S. Economy Grew at Annual Rate of 5.7% in Fourth Quarter, More Than Expected The United States economy grew at its fastest pace in over six years at the end of 2009. Gross domestic product expanded at an annual rate of 5.7 percent in the fourth quarter, well above analysts’ expectations. It had grown at an annualized rate of 2.2 percent in the previous quarter.” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/business/economy/30econ.html?adxnnl=1&emc=na&adxnnlx=1264773833-mrz+wrp3WDrzJHLLK39Gpg
George,
I agree with you. T he Tea Party’s pot will be bone dry before long. Now that the activists have turned their steam on each other. And that hokey of extending first amendment rights to pools of capital, known as corporations, and therefore making “capital” a citizen is silly, foolish and against the public interest. The people need their illusion of democracy. Removing all spending restrictions on corporation will soon shatter that illusion.
That’s not TL, it should be IL for Illinois.
Dfunzy,
I think you are 100% right. The Dems took that seat for granted. Brown played the “everyman” to the hilt, just like W did, although NEITHER of them are anything close to you and me. The people who voted for him “wanted to take their money back.” Well, what about the record deficits we’ve endured since 2004 due to a war and tax cuts that were paid for by borrowed money. The GOP has no problem spending taxpayer money too.
The Tea Party will be dead within a year. People who are unoited only in anger and frustration, but agree on nothing but that anger or frustration, cannot achieve any goals together. They are a protest group at best, not a political party that will be able to affect any changes. Besides, they don’t really want any changes; they want things to go back to where they were about 5-6 years ago, living comfortably off credit cards that they then paid off with equity from their homes. They want to go back to sleep after eating their slice of the pie, never to be heard from again until their greed and apathy place this nation in turmoil again. And, trust me, it will.
Blowhard,
So “a large portion” of Dems are basicqally “moochers”? I have some interesting facts for you- check them out for yourself. http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/266.html
The top states in terms of tax revenue per capita are Bluestates- MN, NJ, TL, NY, CT, DE, RI. The states that take the most in Fed subsidies (like Ms. Palin’s beloved Alaska takes $2 for every $1 in Fed tax revenue they bring in) are Red states- AK, NM, MS,VA, KY, LA, WV, ND, SD, AL. But Dems are the moochers? The facts do not bear that out.
Please, if you are going to make generalizations, at least get your facts straight. It makes you sound unintelligent. But then that would make it no surprise that you think that corproations are some kind of poor, trampled on and disenfranchised bunch of martyrs…
Dfunzy,
Well only time will tell.
Consti Tution,
White Houses in the past have paid attention to Congressional races. Obama White House wasn’t paying enough attention. It is about time that he devotes and gives the proper amount of time to Congressional races.. As far as Democrats losing a few seats due to party switchers, this has happened in the past. Most of the change-overs are really conservatives who think they may have a better shot for reelection in their districts under the GOP label. This is not a party implosion.
Dfunzy
There has been 4 defections from the Democratic party in the last 9 months.
“Mr. Obama has asked his former campaign manager, David Plouffe, to oversee House, Senate and governor’s races to stave off a hemorrhage of seats in the fall. The president ordered a review of the Democratic political operation — from the White House to party committees — after last week’s Republican victory in the Massachusetts Senate race, aides said.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/us/politics/24union.html
Now why would Obama need to do this if the implosion wasn’t happening? Dreams are nice, but facts are more fun.
Today’s New York Times has a detailed article on how the Tea Party is coming apart. Some activists are accusing other activist as being no better than hustlers. “Tea Party Disputes Take Toll on Convention”
Read it and enjoy. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/us/politics/26teaparty.html?hp
Blowhard ,
Corporations are owned by stockholders, who are people who do have the right to vote. Corporations are managed by managers who are people and who have the right to vote. Corporations are abstract legal entities formed, so that their managers and owners can conduct business. Corporations are not a live persons. To say that corporations should have the right to vote is stretching things.
In practical terms corporations, the successful ones, are large pools of wealth and money, cash. Corporations use this cash to advance its own interest to market product products, ideas, and personalities. In the future corporations won’t have to “rent” senators, when it will be able to buy senate seats.
Also Blowhard,
I’ve got news for you, large corporations have been running this show for a long time. All the Supreme Court has done is to pull the wool from some people’s eyes.
Dfunzy,
The corporations do not have the right to vote, except with their feet– as in moving outside of the US. Though they can’t vote, they are taxed. Very heavily. It is what is known as taxation without representation. The supreme court just gave them freedom of speech. And you are upset.
The corporations are the opposite of a large portion of the Democrat party in that if registered voters had to be taxpayers rather than tax money recipients– had to be producers rather than consumers– the Democrats would be dead, or at best a distant third party. Representation without taxation is the lifeblood of the Democrat party. And you would not only steal from corporations with punitive taxes to “empower” your constituents, you would forbid them from speaking out against you. How many tyrants consider them selves benevolent?
Consti Tution ,
I think the Democratic were just over-confident in Massachusetts. As for the Democratic Party imploding, only in your dreams.
Also, as to your other point that the end of PACs is a good thing. Well, the curtain is going to be removed and everybody will be able to see that we have an oligarchy. With spending levels removed , corporations will be free to spend as much as they want. Corporations will be able to flood the air waves with their message. In a practical sense, public opinion will become the opinion of the corporations. Corporations will have the money to ground home their message and to ground out opposing views. This is what happened in the past before restrictions were placed on corporations. And even with the restrictions, large corporations were able to game the system to dominate American politics. I mean rule, no matter who was in the White House and who controlled Congress . Without the restrictions ,
the sky is the limit. And you must remember, a lot of these corporations are foreign own, multinationals!
D,
You wrote: “The big boys won’t need the PACs or the Foundations, or to bet both sides.” Good! That’s the point bring it out in the open. Elected officials are required to list who their donors are. But can hide that fact behind PAC’s currently. That’s no longer going to be an issue, and public attention can be drawn to whom donates to who.
And as for an “implosion” in the tea party one doesn’t have to look any further than the results of Massachusetts to see the Democratic implosion currently in the works. And that’s WITHIN the party, not some movement.
Consti Tution wrore :”It won’t be that easy to tie the tea party to republicans since many of the party attack republicans on a daily basis. I think you underestimate that movement.”
Consti Tution,
The tea Party seems to be imploding. There is a lot of infighting. This often happens in protest movements. I know you don’t believe this, but a lot of early funding for the Tea Party came from GOP activist lobbyists and business groups opposed to health care reform. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t a lot of angry and disappointed people out there who disagree with the government. But a party, a movement, takes funding. With the new Supreme Court decision a lot of lobbyists are going to be in trouble. Corporations won’t need to channel their money through lobbyists or front groups, but will be able to run their own candidates, that they finance. They will be able to pour as much money into media, that they own, to get their guys and gals elected. If you don’t believe that money is a big advantage in an election, check and see how many very rich people have been able to finance their own campaigns and thus win in the past. Now, big corporations will be able to spend as much as they want on the candidates of their choice. Look to see many more ex-CEO’s winning Senate seats.
Consti Tution
wrote “wouldn’t it be funny if Soros was playing both sides against the middle? I’m totally speculating there but it sounds like a good conspiracy.”
I believe big business men have been putting money on both sides to hedge their bets. I do think Soros is just a rich liberal and doesn’t play both sides. But Consti Tution, the game is about to change. The Supreme Court has made it possible for corporations to spend as much as they want on elections. The big boys won’t need the PACs or the Foundations, or to bet both sides. They will be able to buy seats, especially valuable Senate seats, like it was done in the 19th century. Look to the small states where Senate seats can be purchased regularly cheaply.
It won’t be that easy to tie the tea party to republicans since many of the party attack republicans on a daily basis. I think you underestimate that movement. And a scary secrete supporter… wouldn’t it be funny if Soros was playing both sides against the middle? I’m totally speculating there but it sounds like a good conspiracy. Never took you for a conspiracy theorist D. Soros has been funneling money into Democratic PAC’s and groups, even ACORN (which in my opinion should also be an issue this fall) gets his money. You sound like it’s strictly a Republican thing.