Skip to main content

View Diary: Financial parity in sight (161 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Re: Financial parity in sight (none)
    Wasn't the whole point of Campaign Finance Reform to  do away with soft money so that "fat cat" big money donors would have less impact on races and individual donors would have more?  Isn't coming on here talking about how great soft money is a little hypocritical?
    •  Re: Financial parity in sight (none)
      Yep, but it didn't take.  What can you do?

      We are not scaremongering, This is really happening. -Radiohead

      by strannix on Wed Nov 19, 2003 at 05:07:25 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Re: Financial parity in sight (none)
        You understand that the Republicans are raising their money though the individual donations right?  They aren't using loopholes to avoid campaign finance reform restrictions.
        •  Re: Financial parity in sight (none)
          You mean where they sell votes to the highest bidder?

          And I didn't realize that the NRA and Chamber of Commerce and myriad other right-leaning groups and their tens (if not hundreds) of millions of dollars were sitting out this election.

          •  Re: Financial parity in sight (none)
            the NRA wasn't the one pushing for campaign finance reform in the first place.  Democrats were the ones talking about how soft money and 'fat cat' donors have completely corrupted all of politics.  Now that Democrats passed a law banning soft money you are sitting here talking about how great soft money is because its the only counter to the republicans ability to raise legal hard money.  The definition of hypocrisy is when someone claims to hold a belief but their actions show otherwise.  There can be no clearer definition than what you just posted.  

            Or maybe not... I wasn't here when CFR went through.  Did you support a soft money ban at the time?

            •  Re: Financial parity in sight (none)
              It was McCain-Feingold, wasn't it?

              Yes, a serious attempt was made at campaign finance reform. It was weakened from the original proposal and the majority of the FEC commissioners deliberately chose to interpret it in ways that would require either mental retardation or subversion of their office.

              So, given a sitting president with no opposition in the primaries  who will raise and spend $200 million (or more), what is any intelligent opposition supposed to do?

              When Hitler started expanding across Europe, did the rest of the continent say "we need to stay behind our borders"?

              •  Re: Financial parity in sight (none)
                I would think that a sitting president who is raising $200 million dollars in hard money would cause Democrats to increase fundraising to also raise $200 million dollars in hard money.  Not Democrats pushing for a soft money ban.... until they find out that they really need soft money so they look for ways around the law.

                Personally, I don't think it will matter much because I think its likely that the supreme court will remove all hard money restrictions as a limitation on people's first amendment rights.   (the decision will likely be out december 3rd btw) At least then ever dollar that comes in would be public record which is far better than what we have now.

                •  Re: Financial parity in sight (none)
                  Money (in total amounts each individual can donate) does not equal speech. It equals "supervoting". Instead of "one person/one vote" as the maxim, we have Bill Gates gets 1M votes on who gets the nod, while Joe Six Pack gets one. Individual limitations are fine in direct contributions. In fact, it's worked wonders in this primary campaign.

                  However, there is no way in this universe there will ever be an end to "interest group" fundraising and outside expenditures, such as Soros, or Scaife on the other side. How could you write a law that restricts that? We saw how that works under the old rules...with "issue ads" that were barely veiled attack ads. Even public finance wouldn't end that.

                  Like it or not, this stuff will always be there. And eliminating hard money restrictions won't end it either...a lot of these groups and donors will want to stay on the down low so they aren't associated to a campaign, and they will run "issue ads" without attribution anyway.

                  So trying to kill all hard restrictions based on an impossiblity (the end of "soft money', or the equivalent) is silly. A pure example of eliminating the good in search of the perfect.

                  •  Re: Financial parity in sight (none)
                    Either you think that Gates and Soros should be able to use their financial resources to get a candidate elected or you do not.  Since we both agree that there is no way under the first amendment to limit donations to third party groups to get a candidate elected then really what is the big deal about calling it hard money or soft money?  Why should we care if it was donated directly to the candidate or to a 3rd party who will use it to get the candidate elected?  If we can't stop you from donating a million dollars to get someone elected then you should be able to use that 1 million dollars however you wish.  

                    Personally I think that there should be no individual limit because then at least we would know EXACTLY how much money a person has donated to a candidate.  Everything would be in the open for people to look at.  You would have to answer for all the money you have accepted.  To me we currently have the worst possible solution where the same amount of money is being donated by exactly the same people as if there were no individual limits but now its all hidden and secret.  As long as we are in agreement that there is no way to keep a Soros from throwing his financial weight behind a candidate lets push for as much disclosure as possible.

                    •  Re: Financial parity in sight (none)
                      Personally I think that there should be no individual limit because then at least we would know EXACTLY how much money a person has donated to a candidate.

                      I believe exactly the opposite. All money donated should be completely opaque to everyone except the donor. That includes the recipient. The money would have to go through some sort of clearinghouse, with checks and such made out to the clearinghouse administrator, with a separate form indicating the end beneficiary. Some other mechanisms separating the method of donation from the recipient would work just as well.

                      It's awfully hard to "buy" someone/something if you can't prove you actually paid for it.

                      •  Re: Financial parity in sight (none)
                        Yeah, I've read about this as well. But there would have to be draconian penalties on those working at the clearing house (likely the FEC, with outside auditing) who disclose information. And I mean really draconian penalties, like life in prison. There would just be too much incentive for bribery to circumvent the double blind.
                    •  Re: Financial parity in sight (none)
                      I notice you didn't bother with the third in the name troika, "Scaife". I love the way conservatives think that by selectively choosing which names to pick, they think everyone will just magically forget it.

                      You also convieniently forgot my other point, which is that even if we did drop all limits on "hard" money, and required donation tracking, it still wouldn't end this stuff. There will still be numerous folks who will try to hide their donations by funding TP groups. Your own poster boy, Scaife, is a perfect example. I don't think anyone is confused about where and how much Soros is dropping, but Scaife slips his under the table as much as possible.

                      The reality is, divisive figures, or folks who got their money in questionable ways will generate TP groups anyway. Look at Bush's 2000 run, and his crooked Silver Millionaire buddies that created multiple front organization to hide their multi-million $ ads. They knew they were toxic if disclosed, so they faked it. Casino money, Tobacco, etc...will pull the same trick.

                      So your proposed "solution" would fix nothing, except it would let you tap into your millionaires wallets. And for all the talk and phony posturing, that's really what you folks want.

                      The reality is that there are ways one can limit "soft money". You'll never stop it, just as you'll never stop murder, rape, etc...but you can sure elimate 90%+ of it. Simple. Make the laws have teeth. If you don't disclose who really did the ad, you get 20 years in prison, no parole. Ditto if you coordinate with the campaign (and the campaign staffer who did that goes down as well). Almost no one will risk that kind of penalty to cheat the rules. Oh, and lower the individual maximum to $1K on the hard side.

                      That would drive out a lot of the crooked long green in 5 seconds.

              •  Re: Financial parity in sight (none)
                When Hitler started expanding across Europe, did the rest of the continent say "we need to stay behind our borders"?

                No, they sat back and said to themselves, "Oh look, maybe he'll get rid of the Communists for us".

              •  Re: Financial parity in sight (none)
                When Hitler started expanding across Europe, did the rest of the continent say "we need to stay behind our borders"?

                Yes.

                But you know what was the result.

                _______________________________________________

                "Those who fight might lose, those who don't fight have already lost." - Berthold Brecht

                by RavenTS on Thu Nov 20, 2003 at 05:27:32 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

          •  Re: Financial parity in sight (none)
            let's not forget other unseemly tactics of the republican fundraising machine

            i am quite comfortable with what the dems plan to do....
        •  Re: Financial parity in sight (none)
          So there are no GOP PACs or 527s?

          The law allows these. Why would you characterize them as loopholes?

          •  Re: Financial parity in sight (2.50)
            Its a loophole because the whole point of Campaign Finance Reform was to eliminate soft money donations.  Even worse, before the soft money donations at least had to be made in someone's name, now they can be made anonymously.  Either Campaign Finance Reform was a terrible idea that no one should have voted for or Democrats are total hypocrites on this subject.  Either answer is fine with me.
            •  Re: Financial parity in sight (none)
              Or, the GOP (who inserted most of the loopholes) got outplayed when it came time to cash in on them.
              •  Re: Financial parity in sight (none)
                The GOP isn't the one who is having trouble raising funds within the Campaign Reform laws.  The democrats are and thats why they are looking for any way possible not to play by the rules they wanted.
                •  Re: Financial parity in sight (none)
                  As I recall, the quest to limit soft-money contributions was primarily pursued by Congressional Democrats, yes--but the decision to double the hard-money ceiling from $1000 to $2000 was purely Republican, a compromise gesture required to get the GOP to play ball.  Without it, the bill wouldn't have passed.

                  And without it, George Bush would have raised at "most" about 50 million right now.

                  It's not a loophole, because it's in the law, but it's a facet of the law that was engineered to benefit the Repugs. The lawmakers knew perfectly well which party had the most deep-pocket donors.

                  Likewise, the wholly legal "loopholes" cited above were engineered into the bill specifically to allow special interests--on both sides--to continue to participate in the presidential culture war.

                  Without those allowances, the unions and pacs would never have endorsed the bills, and they never would have passed.

                  It's politics, babe.  The messy art of mutually unsatisfactory compromise.

                  •  Re: Financial parity in sight (none)
                    Once again, either democrats were wrong to push for a soft money ban or they are wrong to look for ways to still accept soft money.  You decide which you think is more preferrable.
                    •  Re: Financial parity in sight (none)
                      The push to ban soft money was an idealist one. If it had worked as well as was hoped, it would have been a remarkable improvement. However, the bill never went as far as was necessary for complete reform; it couldn't, with Repug objections and obstacles.

                      The decision to embrace all the soft money available to Democrats is a realistic one.

                      1. Improve the system to the extent possible.
                      2. Work within the established system to arm for political warfare as completely as possible so that...
                      3. Some day further reform may once again be possible.
                      Unilateral disarmament is suicide in any struggle, whether armed with pen or sword.
                      •  Re: Financial parity in sight (none)
                        I would say that the soft money ban couldn't have gone as far as hoped because of the first amendment.    I don't think government should be able to tell the Sierra Club how much they may spend to get a candidate elected.  I don't think that the Government should be able to tell the Sierra club that they may not advertise within 60 days of an election.   I don't think that the government should tell anyone how much they may donate to get a certain candidate elected.  But Democrats were the ones pushing for that soft money ban because of how corrupting it is.  To reverse field now because of how much hard money the republicans are able to raise within the Campaign Finance Reform system is dishonest.  
                        •  Re: Financial parity in sight (none)
                          I have no argument with your point re: the first amendment.  You're absolutely right.

                          But I don't see the current Democratic position on encouraging soft money for outlying organizations as a reversal.  I certainly don't see it as dishonest.

                          It's sort of hard to explain why, but what it comes down to, I think, is intent. McCain-Feingold was intended primarily to remove politicians from the pockets of special interests.  If the money isn't going directly to either the politicians or the national parties, it's harder for anyone to argue that those politicians owe the donors some sort of political kickback.

                          The democratic candidates are less in the pockets of people who donate to organizations like MoveOn than, say, George Bush is in the pockets of his multi-thousand-dollar bundlers.

                          Money to Moveon or wherever supports the party; it supports Bush's ouster--it doesn't go to a particular candidate.  And unless the amount is truly amazingly obscene (as w/ Soros' much-publicized donations), the politician may not even be aware of it.

                          Sure, political money isn't completely regulated (remember the whole free-speech thing?), but it has lost much (if not all, thanks to Bushy-Wushy) of its power to corrupt.

                          A)Why not use it?

                          B)How can you accuse any of the candidates or the party of dishonesty?  They're not the ones taking the money. People have the free speech right (ha!) to put their money to whatever use they want. That's all that's happening. If anything, it's the ultimate honesty. Are you familiar with the challenge, "Put your money where your mouth is"? That's what it's all about.

                          •  Re: Financial parity in sight (none)
                            My real complaint is that the Democrats claimed to be against soft money knowing full well that they would use any method available to keep those large donations coming in.  I think that CFR was either misguided or dishonest (depending on the person) because the lofty goals stated to get it passed had nothing to do with the reality of what would happen afterwards.  As I said before I don't think having soft money donations go anonymously through 3rd parties is better than having that same money go directly to the candidate where it would be fully accounted for in public.  

                            Thats what I mean- either Democrats were wrong to push for a soft money ban in the first place or they are wrong to still look for ways for that soft money to influence the election.  I think that they were wrong to ban the soft money in the first place because I think that the first amendment will always let people donate as much as they want to get a candidate elected if they are wiling to jump through enough hoops.  McCain-Feingold was about public perception more than anything that would make a real difference.  As long as you can't keep that money out of the election process I want to see the information as public and open as possible.  

                    •  Re: Financial parity in sight (none)
                      The Democrats aren't accepting soft money; MoveOn and the AFL-CIO et al. are. They will be bound by restrictions on how and when they spend that money, and cannot consult with the DNC on how to spend it.

                      Allowing these groups (as well as the NRA, the Christian Coalition, etc.) to still participate was part of the McCain-Feingold legislation. Barring them would have led to discarding the legislation on First Amendment grounds.

                      •  Re: Financial parity in sight (none)
                        I agree.  But then you have to tell me why funnelling soft money through 3rd parties where you can donate anonymously is any better than what we had before.  (and we all know that there will be coordination between candidates and the 3rd party groups)

                        Either Soft Money shouldn't have been banned in the first place or Democrats should not be looking for ways to still benefit from it.  The claim was that democrats wanteded a soft money ban in principle.  That large donors had too much influence on elections.

                        So what do you think now?  Is soft money good or bad?

                        •  Re: Financial parity in sight (none)
                          Well, so I'm feeding the trolls...

                          Look, there will not be coordination with the DNC in any directed, meaningful way. That would bring these groups in for some serious penalties and likely blow up politically. And the Republicans have already announced that they will be watching very closely; I'm sure they will be.

                          Only the most radical advocates wanted to "ban" soft money, so quit trundling out your tired dichotomy "either the Democrats were wrong or now they're crooks." I don't think that even works in the world of Harvey Richards, lawyer for children. The bipartisan bill sought to diminish the influence of soft money, not eliminate it. Moreover, it also sought to eliminate the influence of money on governing decisions (Westar, anyone?). Unfortunately we have a president who flouts the campaign finance system, as he did in the last election when he was the beneficiary of  in-kind contributions like the use of the Enron corporate jet for cheap and free media from Clear Channel as well as boatloads of corporate money that comes with strings attached and promises of access like Cheney's energy commission.

                          Look, I was skeptical before of the methods of campaign finance because there really is a First Amendment issue here. I'm not comfortable with this campaign being drwoned in money, but I'm not willing to grab my ankles in the face of it either.

                        •  Re: Financial parity in sight (none)
                          I'm quoting and adapting from my earlier post:

                          Soft money to independent organizations isn't bad.

                          It's sort of hard to explain why, but what it comes down to, I think, is intent. McCain-Feingold was intended primarily to remove politicians from the pockets of special interests.  If the money isn't going directly to either the politicians or the national parties, it's harder for anyone to argue that those politicians owe the donors some sort of political kickback.

                          The democratic candidates are less in the pockets of people who donate to organizations like MoveOn than, say, George Bush is in the pockets of his multi-thousand-dollar bundlers.

                          Money to MoveOn or wherever supports Democratic objectives--principly Bush's ouster--it doesn't go to a particular candidate.  And unless the amount is truly amazingly obscene (as w/ Soros' much-publicized donations), the politician may not even be aware of it.

                          Sure, political money isn't completely regulated (remember the whole free-speech thing?), but it has lost much (if not all, thanks to Bushy-Wushy) of its power to corrupt.

                          Why not use it?

                •  Re: Financial parity in sight (none)
                  Ca,mpaign finance reform was a failure, accept it. That being so, I'm all for the Dems doing what they need to oust the republican putsch.

                  The difference is that every $ of Dem donation looks like a vote, whereas the republicans are running a million to one.

                  Whoever is the dem candidate will be able to count their votes at the bank, long before election day. Now THAT'S and exit poll.

                •  Re: Financial parity in sight (none)
                  Of course the GOP isn't having trouble raising funds within the Campaign Reform laws - they ditched public financing right off the bat.  There's no point making rules if you're the only one who agrees play by them.  And if you seriously think the GOP isn't going to use a few megatons of soft money next year, you're got a severe case of rectocranial inversion.  Two words: Arkansas Project.

                  Go sing that sad song to someone who was born yesterday.

            •  Re: Financial parity in sight (none)
              Yep, the Dems should jump up on their horses, sabres in hand, and rush into the invading Panzers in full calvary charge. Their noble decimation and defeat will show them!!

              Or:

              Charge of the Unfunded Brigade

              Attack Ads to right of them,
              Bilboards to left of them,
              Atroturf in front of them
               Volley'd and thunder'd;
              Storm'd at with lies and shouts,
              Boldly they rode without doubts,
              Into the jaws of Defeat,
              Into the mouth of Hell
               Rode the six hundred.

              Now watch what you say or they'll be calling you a radical, liberal, fanatical, criminal.

              by Madman in the marketplace on Wed Nov 19, 2003 at 05:52:57 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Re: Financial parity in sight (none)
                Its hypocritical to support something until you think you might lose because of it.  Obviously you are OK with that.  

                Either democrats were wrong to support the elimination of soft money donations or they are wrong to be looking for ways to accept soft money donations.  You can choose.

                •  Re: Financial parity in sight (none)
                  I never gave a rat's ass for CFR in the first place, so it's no hypocrisy for me.

                  If it's theoretical hypocrisy for Dems who supported CFR, fine - I can live with that. We're talking about a candidate for President, not a candidate for sainthood.

                  -- Rick Robinson

                •  Re: Financial parity in sight (none)
                  Yes I'm okay with it. Jumping up and down with joy with the thought of it.

                  We are fighting for the life of our democracy here.

                  If someone is in my house, armed and threatening to kill me, you can bet that I'm going to plunge a knife deep in his chest if I get the chance.

                  If you want to see what's wrong w/ sticking to these very fine principles when fighting this level of evil, look over the Congressional Record for the last three years.

                  Now watch what you say or they'll be calling you a radical, liberal, fanatical, criminal.

                  by Madman in the marketplace on Wed Nov 19, 2003 at 06:08:41 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Re: Financial parity in sight (none)
                    If you think that then you should have bitched at your Democratic representatives while they were trying to put the soft money ban in place.  Maybe there were a whole lot of democrats who were 100% against CFR, I just didn't meet any of them.  

                    Either they were wrong then or they are wrong now.  Trying to pass a law then ignoring it when it becomes inconvenient is fundamentally dishonest and yet you wonder why voters don't trust liberals when they claim to have principles?

                    •  Re: Financial parity in sight (none)
                      Damon,

                      the Democrats aren't ignoring the law.  It's been said and said over and over.  The McCain-Feingold reforms contained carefully engineered allowances--one to benefit the Republicans, that being the $2000 ceiling, as opposed to the earlier $1000 ceiling--and one to benefit the Dems, that being the decision not to substantially limit soft-money donations to PACS and the like.

                      It's not hypocritical.  It's carefully calculated political tight-rope walking.  Reform without suicide.

                    •  Re: Financial parity in sight (none)
                      Your analysis is missing something: consideration of the current political environment to that when McCain-Feingold was passed. Things have deteriorated immensely in just the short time since then, and a lot of liberals have woken up to the harsh reality that, for the Right, controlling the entire federal government isn't enough; they want to silence all opposition. They want a single-party system. (That's not conspiracy-theorizing; GOP leaders have said as much.)

                      When you're in a fight for your life, concerns about social niceties tend to be left by the wayside. A person might support gun control, but if he's faced with the choice of shooting somebody or letting them kill him, would you criticise the gun-control advocate for being a hypocrite? Maybe you would, but I think most folks would recognise that a well-balanced psyche has room for both idealism and self-preservation.

                      All of which is a long-winded way of saying, "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight."

                      •  Re: Financial parity in sight (none)
                        The law didn't say "no soft money unless your opponent is a really nasty guy".  The democrats were taking a principled stand (theoretically) against large money donors having such a massive influence over elections.  Looking for ways to get those large money donors back in the game because the other guys were beating you with the rules you wanted is just dishonest.  

                        I don't think that the democrats are evil people for looking for ways to take in soft money.  I think they are completely dishonest for saying that they wanted to ban soft money when they knew that in the next election they would be looking for ways to keep getting those big money donations.

                        By the way, I want to give credit to people for not rating me as a troll.  In all of the posts in this thread where I disagreed with people I was only given a single '1' rating.  

                        •  Re: Financial parity in sight (none)
                          Assuming you're correct, what you're saying is that the Democrats should lose upon principle while the Republicans do whatever they want.

                          Damon.  Saints would not behave that way, let alone the Democrats.

                          You can't do anything if you don't win the election.  You're telling the Democrats to become permanent losers on principle.  Dream on.  No human would do that, not just the Democrats.

                          "Just because we were whipped a thousand years ago is no reason to stop trying now." --Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird

                          by paradox on Wed Nov 19, 2003 at 07:30:35 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                      •  Re: Financial parity in sight (none)
                        They want a single-party system. (That's not conspiracy-theorizing; GOP leaders have said as much.)

                        Who said this and when? Got a link? I find it very hard to believe that any GOP leader would come out and say that publically - I'd love to see the quote.

                        Btw, I agree they want a single-party system - I just don't think they'd ever be that honest about it.

                    •  Re: Financial parity in sight (none)
                      Trying to pass a law then ignoring it when it becomes inconvenient is fundamentally dishonest and yet you wonder why voters don't trust liberals when they claim to have principles?

                      hmmmm, political hypocracy ......

                      Party of 'Free Trade' >>>> Bush imposes politically expedient steel tariffs

                      Party of Personal Freedom >>>> Proposed Constitutional Amendment banning Gay Marriage, using federal drug laws to block medical pot, imposing federal power over women's bodies

                      Party of States Rights >>>> Medical Pot, Right to Die laws ... blocked by Justice Dept.

                      Party of Strong Military >>>> hollowed out, overextended Armed Forces, cuts in active duty and veterans' benefits.

                      Party of Law and Order >>>> Gutting the clean air act, gutless SEC, Where's Ken Lay? Did Rush turn himself in to authorities?

                      I'LL TAKE A LITTLE HYPOCRACY OVER CAMPAIGN FINANCE ANYDAY

                      Now watch what you say or they'll be calling you a radical, liberal, fanatical, criminal.

                      by Madman in the marketplace on Wed Nov 19, 2003 at 07:48:56 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                •  Re: Financial parity in sight (none)
                  I think the appropriate way to characterize what happened was that the Dems supported Campaign Finance Reform and because of the reality of politics "CPF" got reduced in actuality as "Ban soft money".  The Dems then got stuck in a trap of their own and Republican making.  What we have now is a product of that trap and not necessarily what the Dems supported, though it is what they voted for.
                •  Re: Financial parity in sight (none)
                  I'm sorry, but I find this insistence that Kos or Democrats are being "wrong" to be way too much.

                  Regardless of the specifics of the campaign finance reform attempt, it is without doubt that the Republicans have used every shady and wrong trick to get what they want, i.e.:

                • Bush vs Gore
                • Homeland Security Act
                • Texas Redistricting
                • California Recall

                  This goes on and on.  The point here is that what the Democrats are doing is perfectly legal, and the Republicans and Bush could care less about doing the right thing.

                  Losing isn't an option anymore, not against extremely dangerous radical freaks like Bush, so one does what one must, as long as it's legal.

                  Yeah I know I said I'd stay away from the comments for 90 days.  But some hoser moralizing to Kos about being "wrong" was just too much.  We're up against Republicans who could care less.  Why should be be penalized for their intransience?

"Just because we were whipped a thousand years ago is no reason to stop trying now." --Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird

by paradox on Wed Nov 19, 2003 at 06:24:38 PM PST

[ Parent ]

  •  Re: Financial parity in sight (none)
    Heard of China? MFN? Bought and paid for on the floor of the house? Oh but you guys hate communism i forgot. Funny how you love its practices.

    Campaign finance reform wasnt "to eliminate soft money donations". I know you rethugs like to redefine things.. as you cant seem to face reality. But campaign finance reform was and is about putting the government in the hands of the people.

    You claimed rethugs arent living off soft money? Perhaps youd better check the Shrub website and his little trick of granting people who raise huge amounts of soft money personal audiences, dinners, titles..

    How a rethug can toss around a word like Hypocrit boggles the mind. Your party is nothing But hypocrits, liars, thieves and cowards. And unlike the rethugs i tend to argue with.. i can actually back up those charges with fact. Something most of you seem quite unfamiliar with.

  •  Re: Financial parity in sight (none)
    Yeah Right...

    Bush siphons billions from the taxpayers, gives it to the likes of Halliburton for doing who knows what in Iraq because no one's minding the store, and then "asks" for donations from Halliburton's executives, who are "expected" to donate $2k apiece (or face becoming copy boys).  That's what Bushies call "fair" and "legal".  

    Give me an effin' break.  This is little more than another example of GOP up-is-downism.  The really sad thing, Damon, is that you buy it hook line and sinker, and then bury your head in the ground when folks try to explain it to you.  You probably believe Shrub's trickle down policies will someday make you rich too.

    Sing another note Johnny.  That one's gettin' old.

  • Close

    Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

    Click here for the mobile view of the site