Limousine Liberals and Country Club Democrats

[Neil Lisst]

It's always bugged me that the Democratic party has black tie functions in Washington where everyone wears tuxedos and jewelry fit for any country club ball. There is something unseemly about Dems in tuxedos being waited on by waitstaff as they talk about what Dems are going to do to win elections.

I have been in the belly of this beast, and like Jonah, didn't care for it. I'd like to see us act less like Republicans when we come together to meet in DC to discuss the party.

http://www.webcomicsnation.com/neillisst

[sandnsea]

1. I remember when Rush coined the terms

Been a while since I've heard them, seeing as how I never listen to the bloviating pus butt. I'm so delighted to have to see that shit at DU.

[mcscajun]

5. I don't know about "Country Club Democrats", but "Limousine Liberals"

isn't a Rush coinage. It goes back much farther than that. It was first thrown at NYC Mayor John V. Lindsay way back in 1969, during his re-election campaign.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limousine_liberal

It's been thrown at rich liberal Democrats ever since.

[Neil Lisst]

10. Mayor Jon Lindsey of NYC was considered a VP possibility in 72

But McGovern picked Eagleton, then fell back to Arnold's future father-in-law, Sargeant Shriver.

[leveymg]

21. Lindsay was a Republican

who had been endorsed by the NY Liberal Party. Local politics were kinda convoluted back then.

We need our funding base. Let them have their bubbly and patte parties.

[Neil Lisst]

28. They sometimes spend HALF the money ...

on the big dinner?

I consider that wasteful.

Getting money for a campaign does NOT depend on these lavish dinners. They are a waste of money, and IMO, they send the wrong message.

[leveymg]

35. So, we'll substitute Veuve Clicquot for the Dom and roe for the Beluga

to save a few bucks. Some people will spend good money to get dressed up. Some might not contribute, otherwise.

No one pays attention to this sort of thing, anyway. If you don't like rich people, what are you gonna do? Vote Republican?

[Neil Lisst]

43. It's NOT rich people.

It's jackasses who like to dress up. Most rich contributors don't need to have a little show put on for them. They give because they back the cause or the candidate.

[wiley]

178. Let's do Schramsberg!

It so much more freedom champagne,isn't it?

[erpowers]

42. $40 Million Inaugural

Lets talk about Bush's $40 million inaugural. This may have been the most expensive inaugural in history. In addition, this took place in the middle of the country being engaged in two wars. Furthermore, Bush made Washington, D.C. foot part of the bill for his inaugural. I believe some of this money if not all of it came from Washington, D.C.'s homeland security money. So the President, the leader of the Republican Party put on a multi-million dollar party in the middle of two wars and used money that should have been used to protect one of the most important American cities. Beyond that the President did not invited soldiers to this bash, which I will again mention was held in the middle of the country being engaged in two wars, until he was criticized for have a super expensive party in the middle of two wars while soldiers did not have body armor and were coming home and could not get immediate medical care.

I think the Democrats hold the high ground on this issue of spending large amount of money on parties. It was brought up that during the Roosevelt Administration when Roosevelt was reelected he did not even have a party because he saw no reason to have a party during war. In addition, lets talk about the waste of money that goes into Bush using Air Force One to go an campaign and do photo ops at NASCAR events. I think Republicans are much worse at wasting money at parties and other events.

[Neil Lisst]

46. The PUBS are much worse, no doubt about it.

Whyare some Democrats so afraid to acknowledge we have some people who don't always reflect well on the party?

Saying Bush is worse is not a rational rebuttal.

[erpowers]

56. Rational Rebuttal

A rational rebuttal would be that while I value your opinion the idea of bashing Democrats who like to dress up and go to expensive parties is pretty much worthless. Many people have no problem with Democrats have expensive parties. Many people think people being wealthy is a good thing. The only problem some people have is when people with money think they are above the law. I think many people do not have a problem with Democrats have expensive parties. Therefore, it does not reflect poorly on the Democrats when the Party has these parties. The Republicans who have a problem with is parties are your trying to whip up their base which and be called hypocrites on this issue. The other Republicans who make a big deal about these parties are just flat out hypocrites. All the Republicans who claimed to have a problem with Kerry's wealth had no problem with Bush putting on his $40 million election party. I think this is an issues that was started, no matter by who, to make people and candidates spend time debating about money for parties instead of talking about real issues like taxes, education, and national security and civil liberties.

[Neil Lisst]

61. It's intended to cause people to ask themselves ....

... to ask themselves why Democrats need to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars at their annual JJ party in DC.

My opinions and yours will diverge on many things, and this is one of them. Why must there be a constant cadre here at DU who feel that anyone who addresses the warts and moles on the face of the party is a traitor? I'm going to talk about issues that I feel are important to the future of the party. You're free to disagree, but do yourself a favor and stop trying to label anyone who disagrees with you as a Republican. That is sooooo tiresome. Grow up. We don't all march in lockstep on any issue. I'm a Democrat, moreso than most here.

[erpowers]

86. No Label

I never accused you of being a Republican. I said this is a tactic used by Republicans to cause people to think about something that does not have anything to do with what goes on in government. The more people focus on the Democrats spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on parties the less they will focus on the billions of dollars of tax cuts the Republicans are giving to rich people by cutting programs that benefit the poor. My point is that we Democrats should not be focusing on the amount of money spent on parties that benefit the party. We should be focusing on the damage being done to this country by the Republicans. Very few people, if any, here at DU expect anyone of the many Democrats in this country to walk in lock step with the party. Some of us however feel we should not be focusing our energys on attacking the party when it has nothing to do with what they do in politics.

[Neil Lisst]

103. When it comes to party unity, you can get in line behind me.

But party unity is not the same as standing mute about problems in the party. If you want to help the party, don't waste your time trying to talk me out of writing whatever is on my mind. You can't do it, so why not use your energies worrying about things you can do something about?

[TheFarseer]

87. I agree with you

We have some people who don't reflect well on the party. I'll leave it at that.

[Neil Lisst]

102. Thanks.

It's not as if my criticism is untrue. Apparently, making fat cats the butt of a joke is offensive to a few of the low-rollers.

[susanna]

154. To elaborate on a great point you made...

"In addition, this took place in the middle of the country being engaged in two wars."

Added to that, within a gigantic budget deficit that might have even made Reagan uncomfortable... :-(

[Neil Lisst]

156. Wouldn't it be nice to contrast with their opulence?

The Bush as Nero analogy is sound, and I don't give pukes a pass for their excesses. I don't like us to emulate them.

[wiley]

177. Was is the operative word here,no?

All the ladies that lunch had crushes on him.

[jonnyblitz]

6. WRONG!! it was coined by another Democrat!

"The term was coined by 1969 Democratic New York City mayoral hopeful Mario Procaccino to describe Mayor John Lindsay and his wealthy Manhattan backers."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limousine_liberal

[Neil Lisst]

7. That's not right. They've been used by DEMS like for me ...

for many decades.

The first time I heard the terms, Rush Limbaugh was stilling hiding out from the Vietnam war, and it was DEMOCRATS using the term, not pubs.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

16. I'm sure it was applied to the Kennedy's and Roosevelt's

I've heard it since at least the sixties. But I'm sure Rush, in any Oxy-Contin induced state, thinks he coined the phrase.

[Neil Lisst]

29. I used it because it's the term I've heard used in the party for 33 years

I have no idea when it was first used, although I'm sure it could go back to the Roosevelts.

I don't believe in opulent displays of wealth. It's part of what has made me a lifelong Democrat.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

33. Doesn't bother me...

I know rich folks who are the salt of the earth (and, yes, sometimes they do indulge themselves) and I know rich folks who are the scum of the earth (and lead miserable, miserly lives). John Kerry comes froma family nearly as rich as George W. Bush's -- but there's a world of difference between the two.

To paraphrase Martin Sheen (rich guy) from the movie "Wall Street," you shouldn't judge a man's success by the size of his wallet.

[Neil Lisst]

41. I agree that there are good rich people.

And I've dealt with them in fund-raising. Most wealthy people who support the Democratic party do not attend these galas, and most do not require them. The galas are for the socialites in the party, who desperately need to be seen in the company of Senators and such.

[mcscajun]

97. First used in 1969

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=2328313&mesg_id=2328357

[Neil Lisst]

100. What makes you think that's dispositive of the issue?

Sorry, but you might as well tell me you found it in Wikipedia.

[mcscajun]

118. Huh? "Dispositive of the issue?" I'm responding to this line in your post.

"I have no idea when it was first used..."

I put the Wikipedia link in my original posts about this for the benefit of those who need sources.

I didn't need the source myself; I was alive and living in NYC in 1969 and read it/heard it all then.

Is there still a question, or are you going to just be snarky some more?

[Neil Lisst]

123. it's been around a lot longer than that

that's what I'm saying

What makes you think you know where it began just because that's where it began in your world? You're free to state your recollection of what happened in your life, but how do you know what the rest of the country knew in 1969?

It was an old term when I first heard it in 1972, probably going back to the FDR years.

[sandnsea]

78. Excuse me, "resurrected"

I wouldn't have been impressed with a Democrat who used it in 1969 and I'm even less impressed with Democrats who use it today.

[Neil Lisst]

101. you're excused

I grant you a pardon for not knowing.

[Neil Lisst]

30. I dont' recall hearing Rush use it until the mid to late 1980s.

When do you first recall him using it?

[QC]

38. And some of us get tired of seeing McCarthyite guilt-by-association

slams thrown at everyone who dares to disagree with certain DUers, but what are you gonna do?

[sandnsea]

79. guilt by association, interesting choice of words

considering the topic of the OP.

[QC]

90. There's no guilt by association in the original post,

only the opinion that it's unseemly for the leaders of "the people's party" to carry on like Republican plutocrats.

You, on the other hand, in your ignorance of where the term "limousine liberal" comes from (coupled with your usual tendency to be as nasty and personal as possible whenever anyone dares to disagree with you), rushed in to associate the original poster with Limbaugh and the like.

[sandnsea]

91. "carry on like Republican plutocrats"

You keep doing it. I don't know why you're denying it. I don't care where this shit originated, it's still shit and for the past 20 years it's been the shit spewed by Limbaugh and his ilk to turn the rank and file against the Democratic Party. And you and the OP are helping. Now those are the facts and if someone takes offense at being confronted with what spewing right wing bullshit is doing to the party and the country, too fuckin' bad.

[QC]

92. You're right.

It's better to deny that the corporate elite is running both parties than to say anything about it.

We should all just clear our throats and say something about the weather when the subject comes up.

[sandnsea]

94. Attack corporatism all you want

With facts and incidents. Demonizing with right wing labels is a whole other matter and I'm not going to just talk about the weather when the leftists help the wingnuts either.

[Neil Lisst]

124. Your conclusions are ... unsound.

Everyone who disagrees with your views isn't a leftist helping the wingnuts.

[Name removed]

104. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Neil Lisst]

199. Why do use such harsh language directed at other posters?

We'll have to agree to disagree, but thanks for stopping by!

See ya next time.

[David Zephyr]

142. Roy Cohn coined the term "Limosine Liberals"

I don't think Rush has ever said or done anything original. I don't doubt that Rush would claim credit for something that someone else, even another right-wing nutbag, said or did first.

[Neil Lisst]

151. I don't know if Cohn was the one, but he could have been.

It's certainly that old, and he's the 1950s version of Karl Rove.

[wiley]

176. I don't think we should associate ourselves with Roy Cohn

Oh, that's who Ken Mehlman reminds me of, in a sleazier more diminutive manner.

[David Zephyr]

200. What??????

Duhh.

[Robert Cooper]

2. Something wrong with the pic, Neil...

...the pic is right-justified, a portion off the screen, and no scroll bar so I can see it.

Not what you intended, I suspect ;-)


(Edit: no, the metaphor ddn't escape me ;-)

[Neil Lisst]

8. I don't know what you mean.

It looks fine to me.

What are you seeing?

[Robert Cooper]

69. More details (not much more, mind you)

The picture appears on the right side of my browser. I see about two-thirds of the picture (the left side). The remaining one-third (the right side) is off screen. There is no horizontal scroll bar to scroll to the right. The pic is not centered on my screen.

I've never seen this problem anywhere else, Neil.

[Neil Lisst]

105. I have no idea how that happens.

And never heard of anyone having it.

strange

[B Calm]

3. Limousine Liberals!! Oh please, not a right-wing smear in DU!

[Neil Lisst]

11. it's not a rightwing smear

It's an accurate assessment of some of our party members.

[bowens43]

14. You still haven't told us what's wrong with it.

You've only told us that YOU don't like it.

[Neil Lisst]

27. Sure I have. Read the first post.

and my other posts

[TomClash]

4. And how do you finance campaigns without raising money

from big contributors?

[Neil Lisst]

9. Raising money is fine. Having lavish parties isn't.

I've raised money for every major campaign functionary we have, so I know all about raising money. I've done it, and it doesn't require black tie dinners.

[bowens43]

13. Why is it wrong to have lavish parties?

Lavish parties are great fun and great methods of raising money. What to you have against the successful?

[Neil Lisst]

18. Please.

Lavish parties are a waste of money, and they are only had because a few clowns have to have them so they can see and be seen. NO serious party business happens at these silly and wasteful functions.

[bowens43]

24. You talk as one who thinks he's better then others.

there is nothing wrong parties and their is nothing wrong with being successful. Your self-rigthous attitude is very disturbing. If you don't like the parties don't go.

[Neil Lisst]

26. I talk like one who has done a lot of fundraising.

You, not so much.

[formernaderite]

189. considering the true need of so many

hosting a lavish party seem the height of decadence and selfish waste. I detest funraisers of any type, charitable or political that put on a show for the rich. If they want to waste money on these type of parties, please stop insulting everyone by hiding behind the act of "giving".

[TomClash]

96. It does for some donors

though frankly I agree with you 100%. I hate black tie affairs.

[Neil Lisst]

107. thanks

Maybe I should write an article about how they are put together and funded. It's a nasty process from start to finish, and the backbiting that goes on regarding who gets what table, and who has which senator at their table, and so on ad nauseam.

I don't like people acting that way no matter what their reason, and Dems doing makes it worse, IMO, especially around a fancy dinner.

[bowens43]

12. It doesn't bug me in the least.

What would you have us do, throw out or ignore our financially successful members? That's silly. We are NOT a party made up exclusively of the poor and underprivileged. Like it or not it takes a LOT of money to win elections and those with money to donate like to live well. There is nothing wrong with that.

[Neil Lisst]

15. Gee, thanks for the info.

Have you ever raised money for the party?

I have, and lots of it, so don't tell me you have to have lavish parties to raise money. That ain't how it happens. The party is the tail-end of the process. You sell tables in bunches, and then you worry about getting warm bodies to show up. Half the people there are hill staffers.

[bowens43]

20. You need to learn how to read.

Did I say you have to have lavish parties? No I didn't. Your cartoon is offensive and your attitude is offensive . And yes, I have raised money for the party.

[Neil Lisst]

23. Great. Then you sponsor a party.

And if it's wasting money that was raised for the party, I'll comment on it.

[bowens43]

17. I was going to walk away from this after a few comments but

then I looked at your cartoon.

Who the hell are you to say who is and who is not a REAL Democrat.
Do you think that Real Democrats discriminate against people because of their financial standing?


Your cartoon is offensive.

[Neil Lisst]

19. Who am I? A Democrat who has been there, done that.

That's who. I know the animal of which I speak.

Perhaps if you had ever seen some Democrats lavishing themselves at $1000 a plate dinners, you wouldn't be so quick to judge my fact-based cartoon.

[bowens43]

22. You certainly are NOT in a position

to determine who is and is not a Democrat. You attitude is like that of a right winger whining about welfare mothers.

[Neil Lisst]

25. I'm in a position to make MY judgments, just as you are yours.

Thanks for commenting, though.

[Robert Cooper]

75. That's a curious comparison, considering...

...Neil is talking about the flagrant waste of cash in the name of people who cannot pay for good food, clothing, lodging, medicine...

I'm wondering whether the animosity expressed towards Neil's message isn't coming from those who pay $1000 for pants, when the people they claim to care about are getting whatever is available at the Salvation Army.

Do you really think Robin Hood, who steals from the rich to give to the poor, would give a fig whether this kind of party were being held by rich Republicans or rich Democrats? All the ego-tripping glamour accessories that cost thousands could have been put to better use as warm clothing, blankets, and homes for the poor.

Try Matt 6: 6-13. Jesus is annointed by a woman from Bethany. It is a very precious ointment, and the disciples are aghast. They point out that the oinment could have been sold to help the poor. But Jesus claims the woman has annointed him for his burial.

None of the money poured into grandeur benefits the poor. Whom are you casting in the role of Jesus to deny the poor this assistance?

Neil properly points out that none of them are Jesus to deny the poor the profits that go into grandeur, grandeur that only benefits the egos of the rich.

If one is going to talk the talk of helping the poor, what is one doing walking about in riches and splendour?

Isn't that the very thing we accuse RW televangelists of doing?

I feel more sympathy for grass-roots organizers who have to explain this opulence to people who don't have two nickels to rub together than the rich who choose to parade themselves about in all their glory.

If you're invested in the vanity fair, I'd say Neil just gave you something to chew on. The proper response is "thank you".

(edit: typo)

[Neil Lisst]

76. SOLID!

Thanks for the solid argument.

It is the Christmas season, and the words of Jesus I used in yesterday's cartoon are the ones that I try to let guide me.

Opulence is idolatry, and it's bragging. I eschew things bought to impress others, whatever they are. And I don't like Democrats who don't see the arrogance of flashing $50,000 of jewelry at a party for Democrats, where there are hundreds of waitstaff working for 15-20 an hour, if that.

I have the same problem with churches that spend their money on making themselves feel more glamorous, more swank.

[Robert Cooper]

77. Social Gadflies...

The party needs its social gadflies, Neil. I use words, you use pictures, but we both remind Liberals of our grass-roots.

And that's healthy, in the long run.

[Neil Lisst]

108. Sometimes I wonder what the typical Dem believes any more

I see people here defending racism. I see people defending opulence.

Give me that old time religion of populism. It's good enough for me.

I WILL make my comments. They might as well try to shout down Niagra Falls.

I create cartoons about things I know, and I know all about these functions and the handful of Democrats who have to have them. I wish I could write one about the process of getting warm bodies to these things. A table of 8 might have 4 hill staffers on it by the time you sit down. The process of finding and dragging in acceptable warm bodies is seldom over.

[Robert Cooper]

120. Bear in mind we represent a portion of the cross-section...

...the computer literate/discussion-motivated/time-on-our-hands cross-section ;-)

I think there are many others who do not fit that paradigm.

The homeless, for example (oh yes, there are homeless who are liberal at heart).

Perhaps they should invite a few to their next party, and dress accordingly :-)

[QC]

39. "discriminate against people because of their financial standing"

Yeah, millionaires and billionaires just can't catch a break in this country. It's sad, really.

[Neil Lisst]

40. That was funny!

I'm in favor of raising money from people who have it.

But these lavish parties where they spend half the money raised on the party - I can't get behind that. Get a room, some wine, let people visit for an hour or two, then rake the net to some good cause.

[Robert Cooper]

81. It's not that they're rich...

it's that they flaunt riches, as if to say they are better than others and deserve better frivolities than the people they represent could ever dream of.

When dropping a couple of grand on a bauble, are they really concerned about poor jewellers who need economic support, or are they stroking their ego by choosing an item that publicly demonstrates financial wealth?

And how do they tie that in to claim they feel for the "little people" in America?

Nothing wrong with being rich, it can get a lot done. But who wants to get caught wearing a tiara that could have provided warm blankets for 5,000 poor babies?

[LittleClarkie]

134. You think THAT'S bad

Try this:

http://www.webcomicsnation.com/neillisst/neillisst/redirect.php?type=comic&installment_ID=9883&whichbutton=next

[Neil Lisst]

155. Try this one, too! They're a matched set!

[Neil Lisst]

157. This one is another "attack" on Democrats.

Better check it out, Clarkie. I could be a DINO in disguise.

[LittleClarkie]

160. Support for renewable fuels:

"But I intend to set America on the course of energy independence -- hopefully within ten years. And we're going to accelerate our research and development into alternative and renewable fuels." Kerry in the Rolling Stone.

Tax breaks for clean fuels (or in this case, hybrid cars):
"On March 3, 2003, UCS (Union of Conserned Scientists) joined with Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), Representative Dave Camp (R-Mich.), and representatives of the alternative-fuels industry and the auto industry to announce the reintroduction of the CLEAR Act (S. 505), which is designed to provide tax incentives for clean advanced vehicles. The cosponsors of the Senate bill include John Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), James Jeffords (I-Vt.), Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I.), Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.), John Kerry (D-Mass.), Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.), Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), Gordon Smith (R-Ore.), Zell Miller (D-Ga.), Mark Dayton (D-Minn.), and several others. On April 3, 2003, the CLEAR Act passed through the Senate Finance Committee with strong environmental performance criteria intact."

[Neil Lisst]

162. WOW!

You have access to google!

Still doesn't change the message of the cartoon.

There is no Democratic politician leading on these issues.

Now you're just being sad, clarkie. Stop obsessing.

[LittleClarkie]

166. In your comic, you said you were waiting for a Democrat to propose

not lead.

Someone has proposed what Mr. Lisst was waiting for. He no long needs to wait in vain. Rejoice. Huzzah.

Now if Mr. Lisst was waiting for a leader, he should have said so. But no, according to the comic, he was waiting for a proposer.

Or is criticism a problem?

[Neil Lisst]

203. Good luck with Clark.

I strongly suspect his candidacy is going nowhere.

He has no constitency, and given his endorsement on video of Bush and Cheney 4 years ago, he's done.

[LittleClarkie]

204. Actually I'm a Kerrycrat with a tenuous link to Clark at best

But an honest man in government is always welcome. I would welcome General Clark in any capacity, be it Sec. of Defense, Sec of State or POTUS.

And we shall see who'd campaign goes nowhere. I know some conservatives that would have voted for him. So I think that to underestimate the man would be folly.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

31. Don't you think it is really more show than substance?

I mean once the party is over, these Dems doff their tuxes and get to work, don't they? And I thought folks dressed up to honor the guests or the occasion. In DC, it would be appropriate to wear black tie, I would think.

[Neil Lisst]

34. Appropriate? I prefer the way Andy Jackson did it.

He didn't feel any need to bow to the needs of a few for such functions, and opened the White House to regular folks.

[zalinda]

32. Sorry, but even us poor dems like

to dress up once in a while. Going to these "fancy" dinners, wearing gowns and tuxes, is right out of hollywood. I'd go in a heartbeat. This is fantasy, we all need it. There could be many "plain folk millionaires" in that crowd, who do nothing fancy the entire year. But, eating at Joe's can get old, especially to the wives who love dress up.

Lighten up. Dems don't always have to be serious. What you are saying is, why drink wine when beer is cheaper, on second thought, why not just drink tap water, it's cheaper still. Dems should not have to take a vow of poverty in order to have standing in the party. I would find golf or any other sports fund raisers, just a distasteful as you seem to find the formal party. But, not everyone is like me, which is why I'm a dem. I won't rain on their "fancy" parade. And your toon, is a cheap shot, no matter how you justify it.

zalinda

[Neil Lisst]

37. Sorry, but you speak only for yourself, just as I do.

Thanks for your heartfelt whine of sympathy pains for those in the party who like to play dress-up and call it supporting the cause.

Why do you feel the need to pose your comments as if you speak for Democrats? You speak for yourself, just as I do. Why the desperate ploy to pretend you speak for others? Did you hold a caucus before posting today, call in party members and poll them?

[zalinda]

44. No, I speak for my sex

Most women love to dress up once in a while. It is just about every woman's fantasy to dress up in finery, and dance the night away, just like in the movies. Just because they want to do something not YOUR politically correct, in no way makes it a bad thing.

To bad you hate rich people, or people who like to party, or people who do things other than what you deem to be "respectable".

And thanks for insulting me. Calling me a whiner because I gave another point of view, is neither wanted or appreciated. But, then of course, you can say or do no wrong.

zalinda

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[architect359]

51. Dude!

Why'd you have to put down and slam her just for saying what's on her mind?

[Name removed]

62. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ieoeja]

83. I'm with architect.

You were a real jerk in this instance. Her sole insult was calling your cartoon a cheap shot. That pales compared to your reaction.


Now, if you want to get upset about DC putting on airs, take a look at the page delivering a message from the Senate to the House or visa-versa. After being introduced, s/he walks in and bows deeply before delivering the message. First time I saw this on CSPAN I absolutely flipped. This has been going on for 225 years and not one goddamned pro tempore has challenged this?!?

Disgusting.

[Neil Lisst]

110. thanks, always good to hear from a fan!

thanks

I agree with you on the HOUSE.

[Robert Cooper]

82. "I speak for my sex" ???

Zalinda, when did they elect you spokeswoman?

You don't even know "most women", so upon what can you base such a statement? A poll?

"It is just about every woman's fantasy to dress up in finery, and dance the night away, just like in the movies."

Haven't you noticed that a -huge- percentage of those movies involve white people? Most non-whites dream of being white?

Are you suggesting most women's dreams are dictated by the moguls in Hollywood?

One has to "hate rich people" to point out the waste of opulence? Money paid on a single pair of shoes could have provided new blankets for 50 poor babies, and this isn't something we should discuss?

Concern for the poor is fine as long as it doesn't cut into my -party- budget ??

Perhaps you can help me understand this better.

(edit: clarity)

[zalinda]

115. Wow, now I am a whiner AND a racist

Ask ANY little girl (non whites included) and she'll more than likely tell you she wants to grow up to be a princess. Proms are popular because teenage girls like to dress up. Weddings are popular because women like to dress up. I guess ALL that money spent on gowns and accessories, must be from women who are dragged kicking and screaming into fancy events. Do I think these events are necessary? No, but they ARE popular, and more women plan an elaborate wedding than men, so I think statistics can back me up on this, I don't have to take a poll. If you don't believe me, take a look in your local phone book, just about every town and city has at least one formal wear store....it's an entire industry devoted to dressing up.....and a big one too.

And, for your information, most every culture has at least one event in their little girl's life in which she is dressed like a little princess. And, let's not forget all the ladies who dress up in their finery and fancy hats to attend church. Don't they know that they should wear sack cloth and ashes, so they can be considered a good Christian? Well, at least according to you and a few others here.

I don't see why a few events a year cause your panties to be in such a bunch. Could I afford to go to one of these fancy dress parties? No, I couldn't even afford the dress, much less anything else to go with it. But, I will not condemn a small group of people who put on and attend these events. So be it, if it is not your cup of tea. We, dems are not a lock step group. There are many types of people who are in the party, and they are all welcome.

As for "Money paid on a single pair of shoes could have provided new blankets for 50 poor babies, and this isn't something we should discuss?" You apparently now, want to tell people how to spend their money? Paying $700 for a pair of shoes is ridiculous, I know, but I would never tell a rich person that, only a person who couldn't afford those $700 shoes. You seem to want rich dems to give away all the money that they've worked for and not have anything that you would consider to be a "waste of opulence". Should only repubs have luxury items. I really want to know, in case I win the lottery and want the top of the line stove and refrigerator, because then I'll have to leave the dem party, in order to have them.

This toon is objectionable because it is stereotypical of rich people, as uncaring and excessive. I would be equally as offended if it was stereotypical of poor people, as lazy and worthless. Or, any of the other objectionable stereotypes.

zalinda

[Neil Lisst]

126. No, it's offensive to you because you're easily offended.

You have a very intense need to demonize those who disagree with you. You're not speaking for anyone but YOU, and you're not saying anything but "THIS IS MY OPINION."

The cartoon is about jackasses in the Democratic party who spend hard campaign dollars on fancy, forgettable events, particularly the annual JJ dinner in DC, which you don't seem to have attended.

[Robert Cooper]

130. No, I asked questions which you did not answer...

"Ask ANY little girl (non whites included) and she'll more than likely tell you she wants to grow up to be a princess. Proms are popular because teenage girls like to dress up. Weddings are popular because women like to dress up. I guess ALL that money spent on gowns and accessories, must be from women who are dragged kicking and screaming into fancy events. Do I think these events are necessary? No, but they ARE popular, and more women plan an elaborate wedding than men, so I think statistics can back me up on this, I don't have to take a poll. If you don't believe me, take a look in your local phone book, just about every town and city has at least one formal wear store....it's an entire industry devoted to dressing up.....and a big one too."

Devoted to those with money, a fair chunk of the population but my no means all of it. And not all of the chunk that can afford it buys into it.

You've not answered my question by requesting that I poll a segment of the population and apply that cherry-picked group's opinion to everyone not of that segment.

You seem to be suffering from that 'everyone-is-just-like-me' syndrome. They're not.

"And, for your information, most every culture has at least one event in their little girl's life in which she is dressed like a little princess."

And would that be with clothing costing a mint? Many cultures make their own clothes.

"And, let's not forget all the ladies who dress up in their finery and fancy hats to attend church. Don't they know that they should wear sack cloth and ashes, so they can be considered a good Christian? Well, at least according to you and a few others here."

Try Matt 19: 16-30 (especially verse 21) and let me know, won't you?

"I don't see why a few events a year cause your panties to be in such a bunch."

Do my panties need to be in a bunch to explain to the nouveau riche the hypocritical image they create for themselves?

"Could I afford to go to one of these fancy dress parties? No, I couldn't even afford the dress, much less anything else to go with it. But, I will not condemn a small group of people who put on and attend these events. So be it, if it is not your cup of tea. We, dems are not a lock step group. There are many types of people who are in the party, and they are all welcome."

Even those who would turn Democrats into Republicans? I don't think so.

You say you can't afford the dress. Okay. What about food in the cupboards? Got that? How about a table to eat on? A stove to cook with? Heat? Light? Blankets? Yes? Congratulations, you have a good deal more than a lot of people who look to the Democrats for people with compassion.

That -is- the slogan, right? We care? We have compassion for those whom society lets slip through the cracks?

"As for "Money paid on a single pair of shoes could have provided new blankets for 50 poor babies, and this isn't something we should discuss?" You apparently now, want to tell people how to spend their money?"

Do you know a charity that doesn't?

"Paying $700 for a pair of shoes is ridiculous, I know, but I would never tell a rich person that, only a person who couldn't afford those $700 shoes. You seem to want rich dems to give away all the money that they've worked for and not have anything that you would consider to be a "waste of opulence"."

You are saying this to someone who has worn the same two pairs of pants, three shirts and two sweaters for ten years. All told the ensemble cost about $100. I don't wear jewelry, not even a wedding ring. Our money was needed for living expenses.

I do not begrudge the rich their riches. As I've said elsewhere, riches can accomplish quite a bit. But not if it is spent on ego-tripping opulence.

If a rich woman can wear a $10G tiara to a party, we shouldn't think about how many people are going without medicine because they can't afford it tonight? If she's tripping the light fantastic with her beau, we shouldn't wonder how many homeless are freezing to death tonight? She's entitled to her 'fairy tale princess' moment, and claiming she's a democrat concerned for the sick and the homeless when she spends $10G on that tiara is in no way hypocritical while the sick go without medicine and the homeless die?

I realize this is a concept not often shared these days, but there used to be a concept called "self-sacrifice" necessary to help those more in need than us. Seems to me people would have a better party if there were no homeless, no sick in need of medicine. And instead of spending $10G on a tiara, profiding $10G worth of medicine and housing for the homeless might actually be a lot more like what a "fairy tale princess" -should- be concerned for, rather than preening her own ego with it.

"Should only repubs have luxury items. I really want to know, in case I win the lottery and want the top of the line stove and refrigerator, because then I'll have to leave the dem party, in order to have them."

I suppose it depends upon your priorities as well as your cheque book.

"This toon is objectionable because it is stereotypical of rich people, as uncaring and excessive. I would be equally as offended if it was stereotypical of poor people, as lazy and worthless. Or, any of the other objectionable stereotypes."

And isn't it obvious that for some helping poor people isn't worth giving up that $10G tiara they want to wear to the party?

Perhaps if poor people were to show up begging for the scraps off the tables of the rich, the party wouldn't seem so much fun. I wonder how many of your opulent dems would be saying "who let all these -poor- people in?"

Rich opulent republicans or rich opulent democrats, what's the difference to Robin Hood?


zalinda

[zalinda]

163. You think you are the only one who has had it rough?

I'll let you in on a little secret. I live in a 2 family house I bought 4 years ago for $23,000 in the inner city. I cannot afford to repair the kitchen and bath upstairs, so I can rent out the place. The bath and kitchen downstairs are barely usable. The bathroom ceiling is coming down from water damage from the upstairs bathroom leaking for so many years. The bathroom sink, only has cold water and I've got duct tape on the shower tiles so water won't get behind them and rot the wall. I have an illness that prevents me from keeping a job and SSI has denied my petition. I started a small online business to try to keep a roof over my head and food on the table. My son, who I support, is under going treatment for Hep C, which he mysteriously contracted. The only good is that his rich father is paying for the treatment. Yes, I have seen both sides. My ex-husband's family is quite rich, actually richer than I thought. I didn't find out the extent of the riches until his parents died. My son and I got nothing in the will. We've almost been homeless twice, and somehow we got through it. I can't remember when I've gotten clothes from a "real" store, I buy my clothes and anything else I need from a thrift store. I even buy "out of date" meat, so we can afford meat. Fresh vegetables and fruit only enter the house during the growing season, since I can get it at the farmer's market.

I am not angry at people who have money. For the most part, they have worked their butt off for it. Even those who haven't worked for it, do give a lot of money to charity, even if it's for a tax write off. Are you saying that people should forgo their expensive knick knacks (that make them happy) and give it to the homeless? Let's see how many people would want to work hard to give their money away to strangers. How much "self-sacrifice" would a person have to perform to make you happy? Should they trade in their large family home so that more people can have medical care? Then who should buy their home, if no one should have excess.

The rich have rights too. They have the right to work and spend their money the way they want. We don't have money police, at least not yet, although you seem to want to take on that role. To criticize rich dems because they don't spend their money the way you want certainly does nothing to help the party, and therefore does not help poor people.

If you can't tell the difference between rich dems and rich repubs then you can't be helped. You seem to have a very narrow view of who rich people are. The rich dems are really just like you and I, but have money. They donate and volunteer to help the poor. They own companies that are fair to their employees. They are civic leaders who campaign for equality. If they want a boat to cruise around in, or an expensive piece of jewelry, who cares, it's their money. They give to the party to help change the world for everyone. The repubs give to the party so that they can make more money. That's a big difference.

zalinda

[Robert Cooper]

168. Please refer to Reply 130 nt

[PassingFair]

179. Hey Cinderella! Your complex is showing....

You speak for "your sex"?
I'm a female. You most certainly DON'T speak for me.
Play Princess on your own dime.

[Robert Cooper]

182. I was beginning to wonder...

...when we'd hear from someone who'd recognize the problem here.

Thanks for the reassurance. :-)

[Neil Lisst]

190. Good call

But you'd better be careful.

She can dish it out, but she sure can't take it.

Isn't that the way it always is? Find someone who is ubercritical of others, and you'll find someone who can't handle being called on it.

[Robert Cooper]

192. "ubercritical..."

Careful of those absolutes. Some of us are very good at dishing out criticism, and are quite good at handling it too.

:evilgrin:

[erpowers]

36. Limousine Hummer Conservatives....

St. Andrews Golf Course Republicans. Once Rachel Maddow told the story of how her and Ann Coulter were both guests on MSNBC. It appeared that Coulter came to the interview in a stretch Limousine Hummer. In addition, Tom Delay and many other Republican have gone to play rounds of golf at the St. Andrews golf course. Also, lets talk about the corporate jet Republicans. It was just reported that even though Tom Delay lives in a $300,000 house he was lavished with a multi-million dollar life with lobbyists paying for many great perks for Delay. Lets talk about Schwarzenegger wearing Armani suits and Bush wearing suits that cost about $2,000.

Republicans do not act differently than Republicans do at their events. Please tell me who at the $250,000 a plate lunches that Republican have is dressed in jeans and a tee shirt. It was the Republicans who criticized Bill Clinton for not wanting to wear a suit in the White House. One of the people who wrote a book about Clinton criticized him for wearing shorts in the oval office. That is what make these people say Clinton was a bad president. What Democrats should do is point out that the Republican do exactly what the criticize Democrats for doing. The only time Bush tried to look like a regular people is when he needs votes. The time he and his staff was pictured with shirts without ties is when Bush and his advisor's realized he could get more votes if he and his staff took off their ties. One thing Democrats can try to stand on is that when we dress casual we are doing it because we really want to and not to get votes.

[Hippo_Tron]

95. I went to a somewhat upscale Kerry fundraiser

It wasn't a black tie DC function or anything but it was $1000 a person to get in. Kerry actually addressed the subject by saying "George Bush wants to take away healthcare from the people who served your dinner tonight so that you can get a tax cut. You know that's wrong and that is why you are here tonight."

[Neil Lisst]

114. I'm in favor of those kind of events.

The big ticket item is the talent. If you're bringing the heavies in, you charge whatever you can get away with. But on the expense side of the ledger, a dollar saved is a dollar earned. That means cut out the sit-down dinner, cut out the dance band, and make the free drinks wine, with a cash bar for the liquor.

[Hippo_Tron]

122. It was pretty much like that

There was no sit down dinner, it was buffet style. The food was good but not ultra fancy or expensive. There was a jazz band for the first hour or so, before the speakers came on but I would imagine that they couldn't have been any more than $1000 for one hour and probably less. Hell they may have done it for free to support the cause. Drinks I'm not sure about because I'm not 21.

My dad was one of those people who didn't really care at all about the atmosphere. He's been voting Democratic since McGovern but I don't think that he's ever contributed. He gave the maximum amount
($2000) this time to get both of us into the event. But he really gave the money because he knew how important it was to defeat Bush and also I think it's the first time in his life that he could really afford to contribute that much when a candidate really needed the money because Clinton was pretty much a sure thing to win either way and Gore at least had soft money.

[Neil Lisst]

127. I'm all in favor of those events.

I think they serve a very good purpose.

I'm not suggesting we have spam sandwiches washed down with wine in a box. I like the event that takes place 5:30-7:30, after everyone gets off work, but when they can still spend an hour or so hanging out in some hotel hall drinking inexpensive white wine. Throw some decent food out there buffet style, don't go overboard on the meat, and don't have people sit down.

Bring the guest in to speak at the end, and keep it short.

[BamaLefty]

45. I Agree 100%

I can't really think of a solution though. ;-/

[Neil Lisst]

47. Thank you!

Here's my thing. I've been to many of these functions over the years, and I always cringe when I see the people we really represent - the waiters, the kitchen staff, the various hotel people - all working hard to serve people who have so much money they can throw a few thousand at a party. I've seen the look in their faces as they serve without so much as their recipient offering eye contact, muchless empathy or understanding.

[BamaLefty]

50. I Know That In South Alabama

Keep in mind, south Alabama.;)

We have fish fry's to promote our candidates. There are no servers. We are the servers. Everybody is invited, from the richest man in town to the poorest. And to me, that's what the Democratic party stands for. When I think of the Democratic party I don't think of black tie functions and filet mignon. I think of good, honest, hard-working, average Americans that have come together to make this nation a better place.

And that's just my $.02 :)

[Neil Lisst]

55. that's the kind of fundraiser I prefer

thanks for mentioning it

[architect359]

49. Sure its wasteful from a dollar and cents point of view

But I think that it pays from a public relations standpoint. It's an attention grabber, no? Make 'em happy (those that dig this sort of thing) and loosen their pocketbooks. I personally tend to not worry about it as much because these things don't seem to happen all that often but I'll be the first to admit that I don't know shit about it since I don't pay that much attention to such affairs. Its a big world and, having to state the obvious, there are many ways to fundraise and generate excitement for the base. What's the big deal? To each their own.

I appreciate and respect your efforts in fundrasing as you have mentioned. It don't mean that your way is the end all be all of all methods and definitely, neither is the ballroom version.

[Neil Lisst]

57. I don't pretend the cartoon is more than my opinion.

It's designed for editorial pages, and it's landed on a few so far.

I intend to influence discussions and therefore the body politic with it.

About 1 of every 20 says something about some Democrat someone here isn't going to like. Last week, all the Hillary shills were up in arms.

I explained my position in the first post regarding this kind of fundraising.

[erpowers]

52. Limousine Liberal and Country Club Democrat

Your definition of Limousine liberal and Country Club Democrat is too broad. There are many Jefferson-Jackson dinners all over the country. There is one in Louisiana every year. I can tell you that many people who are not greatly wealthy go to these parties. Good people who do want to help the party go to these events. Texas has a Jefferson-Jackson dinner also and this year they auction off Democratic items. The major thing that matters is the work that gets done after the parties are over. It is the Republicans who have been hurting the poor and our military while giving tax cuts to the rich. It is the Republican Party that is cutting social programs in order to give tax cuts to the wealthy. It is the Republican Party that helped this country get back into a deficits. You should be bashing them instead of bashing the Democratic Party for having a few expensive parties each year. The Republican have parties that are just as expensive or more expensive and still hurt people that they should be helping.

[Neil Lisst]

58. I know there are Jefferson-Jackson functions all over.

I specifically addressed myself to the one held inside the beltway.

[seabeyond]

53. so only the poor are allowed to be democrats? or are you

suggesting that even if a dem isnt poor, they are suppose to act like it to appease?????

silliness. the dems do not act or behave like the repug. bigger power to them that have the money, go to the country club, drink their champagne AND are willing to pay more of their money out in taxes to help those with less. and control corporations for workers. and support those that dont have. that is wakling the walk. not being poor to fit an image of what a dem is

[Neil Lisst]

59. Why don't reread my first post?

I don't think I suggest that the Democratic party is only for poor people. I suggest that when rich people have lavish parties in Washington, DC, and do so to support the party, they spend less money having a party and leave some of the jewelry at home.

Please address what I post, instead of making up some straw man to engage. You start by mischaracterizing what I've said, then attacking that bogus creation.

[seabeyond]

66. i love that strawman thing.

i am all for us wearing jeans, .... sittin around a table intellectually discussin and brainstormin to heal the woes of the nation. the most passionate i am. and pumped and feeling good. some wine, pot, coffee.. personal prefences galore...... a blast for me.

i am a member of the old money country club. i wear my cut off 501 jeans and tee shirts..... amongst the group of second wife hooked up with ollllllldddd men, and toddlers running around. i also have to park car out and away, with all my stickers so it is not wildly known my hubby (who owns a business) married a liberal. duh, in cut off jeans. i have also seen the pc liberal country clubs too.

and they are just as harsh, even more harsh with my being.

so i say in laughter, the strawman is your argument. who the f* cares if they have some of these parties. these people like to do this. they are the ones going after the big bucks

i would also like to call attention to the kerry meet ups, and kerry's whole presentation adn deans in grassroot and mama teresa, and deans wife lordy.

and sometimes, the rare occassion, generally forced (well in the past anyway) i too became that all glammed out, drinkin champagne and being waited on gal. not a favorite. but not a big deal either.

i just dont think your argument is a big deal

[QC]

68. You expect people to respond to what you actually post around here!

Fat chance!

[Neil Lisst]

71. I've noticed it's a chronic practice ....

... by those here who love to argue, and want to make every argument into some grand "good guy-bad guy" argument. The starting point is always the seldom well conceived straw man or analogy.

Whatever it is, it will be just like what Rush, or Hannity, or the RNC does. It's really kind of comical.

[mainer]

54. I've thrown fundraisers. You need to get them in the door.

And the way to get them in the door is to promise them some fun, some decent food, and a chance to put on the dress they haven't worn all year. What's the alternative? Throw water and hot dogs at them, and then expect them to write a ten-thousand dollar check? When you're talking about large contributors, the cost of providing nice appetizers and wines is just a small fraction of what they'll contribute.

Could you do it with hot dogs? Yes, provided you have a "name" show up like Howard Dean or Hillary Clinton. Then people won't care what they're fed. But if you don't have an attraction, most people would prefer to stay home and watch their Tivo. And if they don't show up, they won't write as big a check.

[Neil Lisst]

63. I KNOW that's how you get them in door.

I know all too well that many have to be pampered to get them to write a check. I know that some require the hobnobbing, and the social functions. And it's unfortunate.

[formernaderite]

60. Nation mag used to do a ueber luxury cruise

for which you could buy uber priced tickets...always thought that was pretty paradoxical.

[leveymg]

65. Do the names Vanden Heuvel and Rothschild ring a bell?

Members of some pretty Uber families at the helm of major "left" publications. Not paradoxical.

[Neil Lisst]

72. Katrina! The good one, not the bad one.

ACLU Katrina.

[Neil Lisst]

64. 8322 people read yesterday's cartoon

2 commented on it here.

That is the irony, to me, of subject matter in discussion here. Gossip reigns supreme. Someone makes a thoughtful topic, and it may or may not get play. But start a "DLC sucks" or "DEAN can't Lead" and you'll have a runaway hit.

Sometimes I think our priorities are upside down, and when I create a cartoon about Democrats, that really shows in the discussions which follow. We can be united as a party and still engage in the very important internal debates that have always been part of the party internal dialogue.

[lostnfound]

180. OMG that one is hard-hitting.

The cartoon that is. Nice.

[Neil Lisst]

191. Glad you liked it!

I'm most proud of that one. It says something about the faux Christians and their hateful, warring obsessions, their brutality in the name of God and freedom, and the way Christmas is a commercial holiday hardly about the man whose title it bears.

Then you look at what Jesus said to do, and you say WTF?!!

[JPZenger]

67. Remember they pay the bills

I believe expensive jewelry and expensive cars are immoral, particularly with all the starvation in the world. However, remember that the limousine liberals are the ones who pay much of the bills of the Democratic Party.

[NYCGirl]

70. Well,

expensive cars and expensive jewelry can't be immoral, because they're inanimate objects. The love of such things can be immoral, if you believe. Personally, I don't begrudge people who want good things, if they can afford them. I would only hope they help others, too.

[Neil Lisst]

74. I would argue that expensive cars and jewelry are inherently immoral.

But that's another topic for another day.

[Robert Cooper]

84. Let me know when...

...my argument is based on integrity, not morality. Claiming to care for the poor and displaying opulence is hypocritical.

But if we all had the same amount of money, what would make expensive cars and jewelry "inherently immoral"?

[Neil Lisst]

111. I'm taking a practical approach.

Not a theoretical approach. Opulence by definition cannot be available to all, or it is not opulence. It is the excessive show of wealth.

Jewelry is one of the best examples of opulence, and you know all too well the jewelry worn at the annual J-J party in DC.

[Robert Cooper]

132. ah, but you didn't say opulence ...

...opulence isn't the same as expensive cars and jewelry. Opulence is context-sensitive.

[Neil Lisst]

139. Expensive cars are inherently opulent.

Otherwise, they wouldn't be expensive.

[Robert Cooper]

165. "Expensive" is also context-sensitive...

Consider the homeless: every car is "expensive" to them.

Careful lest ye hoist ye-self on yon pointy petard ;-)

Beware of absolutes. Absolutes precedes Authoritarianism. :evilgrin:

[Neil Lisst]

173. I spent opulently a couple of years ...

... all at the same time back in the day, back before I realized I didn't really want to be that guy.

I'm true to my roots, and they are not roots of opulence.

For the Democratic party, I think we need to get back to our roots, get back to the basics we stand for and believe in. I cannot believe we have so many people who get so upset about a cartoon which does nothing more than tell the truth about a major Dem function. I always thought the SHOUT DOWN was the tool of the wingers, but we have our own cadre here of those who favor the tactic.

[Fla Dem]

85. Well said. This isn't a case of either one or the other. There is

absolutely nothing wrong with wealth or influence. If that wealth and influence is used for the betterment of the less fortunate, all the better.

[Neil Lisst]

73. I know. I've done it. Many times.

Why do you think my opinions are so firm?

I'm jaded, which I readily admit.

Don't go to Steven Wright expecting to see Gallagher bust a watermelon.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

80. There's a simple test.

Is it the case that

(Money raised by fundraising including expensive parties) - (cost of fundraising including expensive parties) > (money raised by fundraising not including expensive parties) - (cost of fundraising not including expensive parties.)

If that is true, then the Democratic party should be organising these parties, if it's not then it shouldn't. A party is a sufficiently neutral event - it neither harms anyone nor does anyone except the people there any benefit - that there is no real ethical dimensiom; it's purely a practical decision.

I think it very unlikely indeed that that claim is not true, on the grounds that the parties raise more money than they themselves cost, and I doubt if much or all of that money would be given anyway. As such, I think they're probably a good thing.

[Neil Lisst]

98. thanks for the Economics 101 note

But it's irrelevant.

Of course it makes money. Lots of things make money that we don't do.

[jrd200x]

88. Should we only wear rags and be beggars?

I'm also sick of hearing something - sick of dems on this board attacking other dems for not being democratic enough! DINOs! Please stop! This is exactly the reason we cannot win elections.

I'm in the consulting business. Consultants seem to hate salespeople - but they don't understand that NOTHING HAPPENS until something is sold. It's the same in politics. While we bicker about who is more "green", who cares about the poor more, whose progressive and who isn't, the GOP wins elections. NOTHING HAPPENS until we win elections.

Stop the nonsense, and focus on the game the GOP is playing - not the game we're playing. If that means tuxedos, suit me up and send me in. It's nothing compared to always being on the losing side of the election. Nothing!

[Neil Lisst]

99. color me dubious

of your bona fides

[jrd200x]

137. 'scuse me?

You're dubious of my bona fides? Excuse me, but do I know you?


The Internet makes it so easy to be critical without any substance - intellectual or otherwise.

[Name removed]

140. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LittleClarkie]

145. What would make you dubious

Why would it be so incredible that this person belongs to a consulting firm?

[Neil Lisst]

146. speaking of dubious

We know Clarkie. You're still mad about one of my cartoons. Grow up.

[LittleClarkie]

148. What would be dubious about this person's bonifieds

?

[jrd200x]

201. I don't belong to a firm - I own a firm

I'm not sure what that means - "belonging to a consulting firm." I own the firm. And I employ 20 people.

Are you saying that business owners, professionals, and people who make more than a few bucks an hour are not welcomed in the party? THat would be so wrong. Bill Gates is a Democrat. George Soros is a Democrat. I'm a democrat (and if either one of those guys woke up with my money they'd kill themselves).

I'm dissapointed in the wing of the party that seems to have distrust and dislike for successful people. Just becuase the Republicans have poisened the well and corrupted the process with money does not mean success is bad - it means they are un-ethical bastards.

[jrd200x]

202. dying to know what this person said

:-)

[Neil Lisst]

198. That's right.

Your bona fides.

[xchrom]

89. i love expensive parties!

and men in tuxedos -- yummy.
fabulous gowns -- even better.

not that i ever get to go to very many -- but i love 'em.

[Neil Lisst]

112. Even if they mean you spend $500,000 of campaign money?

There are many black tie events one might attend that are NOT Democratic Party functions.

[xchrom]

116. it's fine with me -- sorry neil -- i love expensive glittering parties

if the democratic party feels that it can accomplish what it wants with a grand soiree -- then go for it.
pull out the fuckin stopper and party like it 1999.

it's not now nor will it ever be one of the things that i dislike about the democrats -- phony shows of self righteousness are just as offensive.

what matters to me is policy and principle with a muscular defence and offence -- if you manage to do it with a tux or a cocktail gown on -- and look good doing it -- then more power to you.

[Neil Lisst]

128. I recognize that some people love big parties.

I just don't like having them with hard money.

[The Flaming Red Head]

93. Is everything always as it seems

don't wealthy (very) wealthy buy blocks of tickets to stuff like this and then hand out tickets as rewards to volunteers, staffers, family members and what have yous. Maybe some (and I say some) of the dresses, jewelry, tuxes are borrowed and all is not always as it appears.

[Neil Lisst]

117. You are absolutely right.

As I indicated in one post, up to half the people at any given table may be Hill staffers at the annual JJ dinner in DC. It's called "getting warm bodies," and it's a part of the job of putting on the functions. You get them paid for, but then you have to get the people there. Only rarely is the demand for the ticket greater than your need to drag warm bodies there to fill the tables.

See how wasteful that is?

I am sympathetic to those who fit the criteria you set out, the workers who get to go to the big party and have fun. But even when I attended such parties as a legislative assistant, I didn't like the opulence.

[The Flaming Red Head]

187. not just warm bodies it's soft money

1,000 dollar a plate dinners, my ass. Some millionaire buys 100 tickets and that's a $100,000 donation. both parties do it and always have.

[Capn Sunshine]

106. I don't think any reply will unmake your mind

AS a member of a Country Club and someone who works their ass off to make my money, I am a loyal Dem and have worked National campaigns since the 60's. People call me "rich", but I have bills to match my income. I don't need some guy in love with the proletariat -not that there's anything wrong with that-- to dictate to me how we should and shouldn't throw parties. The implication you seem to be making is that because I make six figures a year, I'm somehow less moral than you. I reject that categorically, and have upped my charitable donations to offset my freaking tax cut I don't need. I think you miss the point about parties, it's just how it's DONE.

Save the outrage for some real injustice, like a president who has assumed dictatorial powers with the sniveling acquiescence of the DC party leaders.

[guidod]

113. What's all the fuss?

What does money have to do with loyal dems? This thread is a total waste of time, who cares? The energy that everybody is using here will not change a thing. Money will ALWAYS buy you power. Personally I like t-shirts and tennis shoes.

[Capn Sunshine]

133. what he said

I don't think this discussion is productive, and everyone should certainly be allowed to pursue whatever floats their boat.

It's the senseless stereotyping I object to. Just because I'm a surfer for example, doesn't mean I'm an airhead, dude.

[guidod]

136. You make a good point...

neighbor.

[Neil Lisst]

147. Stereotyping is bad.

You should stop doing it. The cartoon is hardly aimed at anyone other than those to which it clearly refers.

[Neil Lisst]

119. That's not wealth

You aren't wealthy.

I've not said anything about my wealth, so your inference is misplaced. I am not opposed to having wealth. I'm very comfortable. But I don't need to wear it everywhere I go. Sure, 25 years ago when I first made major money I had to show some it off with a country club membership and other indicia of success. But I outgrew that. Perhaps you will, too.

In the fund-raising process, I have put up with loud-mouthed low rollers who thought they were big time contributors for decades. Nothing new here. Show me a small pond and I'll show you a minnow who thinks he's a big fish.

[Capn Sunshine]

135. you are still misconstruing

You make a heck of a leap there, seeing as how my great grandfather was in a country club. And my grandfather, and my father. I happen to LIKE country clubs. I never stated I was neauveau riche, yet you blasted right ahead with that assumption. I think you may object to classless blowhards, and perhaps you've been abused by a few, but I'm all growed up, thank you very much, I'm almost a grandparent, and I can't imagine what life must be like where you come from, because , where I live, we judge people on their inner qualities, not their ability to raise money.

[Neil Lisst]

141. Charming.

Where I come from, people can comprehend what they read.

[Czolgosz]

109. Respect for progressive, populist values isn't limited to the poor just as

respect for women's rights isn't limited to females and respect for racial equality isn't limited to racial minorities.

There is nothing inconsistent about wealthy Democrats.

I don't personally see any need for tuxedo-attire fundraisers, but I don't think people are as eager to buy tables at $1,000-a-plate fundraisers if we serve BBQ in overalls (I'd personally be happier with the BBQ and overalls, but then I'd generally even happier still to buy the tickets and skip the event all together).

Fundraisers are seeking to maximize contributions, and if they need a little gala to do it, it's for a good cause.

Have you ever raised funds for a political candidate or a political cause? I have, and it's very hard work. Why tie one hand behind the fundraiser's back by imposing a phony limit on what kind of events we can use to raise money? If you feel strongly, put together your own fundraiser and make it as casual as you like, I've done both casual and formal fundraisers, and I can tell you which type raises more funds.

[Neil Lisst]

121. Yes, I've raised a ton of money

I know all too well what goes into it.

How many of you who are attempting to rebut have ever BEEN to the Washington, DC Jefferson-Jackson event?

[wiley]

125. It's a traditional power dance

that says give us large corporate donations and contributions. Big Dog and Hillary walked to thweir inauguration to mess with the tradition and let us know he was one of us,really.

The idea is to create these events in your community (or DC) and get together. My fondest memories include Democratic annual clam bakes in apple orchards and corn fields. Democrats don't do this enough anymore, and Pukes have manipulated church groups to do their political bidding. Let's get together,people. You don't ever have to go to a black tie event. The other point is that I have demanded of the organizers the right to wear whatever I wanted to wear, and they relented. Those Dean house parties were one of the best ideas in a long time for Dems. Make the "leaders" come to them and ask for your vote!

[Neil Lisst]

129. MOST Jefferson - Jackson events are WONDERFUL

No one loves a good JJ event out in the hinterland more than me. Give me a chicken dinner in Des Moines or a barbequed burger in Beaumont. I'm down with Dems outside the beltway.

This has escaped notice, but the cartoon really is about the WASHINGTON DC JJ DINNER.

[AX10]

131. and what the Hell are Republicans then?

They are the richest of the rich and the greediest of the greediest.

[Neil Lisst]

138. Republicans are worse.

I don't see how that makes it better.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

185. Not entirely true.

IIRC, most of the richest states vote Democrat and the poorest ones vote Republican. I don't know what the statistics are for the richest and poorest people, but I don't think it's as simple as "the richer you are the more likely you are to vote Republican."

If anyone has any decent statistics on correlation between wealth and voting patterns in the US, I'd be very interested to see them.

[formernaderite]

194. it seems all the country club republican states have gone blue

which might explain why the richest states now vote democratic. Although we may have resented their wealth...the country club repubs were NOT conservative about anything other than finance. Look at the DLC...that is the face of the country club repub.

[LittleClarkie]

143. Is this attitude of yours related to how you feel about Teresa Heinz

Just out of curiousity. You don't seem to like rich folks very much. You called a rather lovely woman "Mrs. Howell" and suggested she was one of the reasons Kerry lost. Oh, excuse me, "Frankenkerry".

That would seem to indicate some sort of prejudice on your end.

[Neil Lisst]

144. Mrs. Thurston Howell III?

I've already responded to your whining about my characterizing THK as Mrs. Thurston Howell III. Go look it up and read it again if you can't live without it. I don't intend to waste time explaining it to you again.

Now I'll compare you to Gilligan.

OK, little buddy?

[LittleClarkie]

149. Looking back, you explained that you were just happy to get a reaction

Are you no longer happy just to get a reaction?

Hardly an explanation for the characterization, really.

And my question is left unanswered. Do you have an issue with rich folks, such as Mrs. Heinz?

[Neil Lisst]

150. I don't answer questions just because they fly through your head.

I know. You think that by posing a question, you are entitled to answer.

But I slough off people that I think are a waste of time.

[sandnsea]

172. One things for certain

He isn't ever going to get rich with his cartoons because they just aren't funny. Maybe that's what crawled up his ass. :shrug:

[LittleClarkie]

175. All I know is that if you have to explain a joke and why it is funny

or explain the point because it wasn't evident, then perhaps you need to reword the sucker.

The ability to take constructive criticism would probably come in handy as well.

Meanwhile, I'm still trying to figure out why, when I googled Mr. Lisst, I found this "feedback" under that name on an online comic site, as if Mr. Lisst had to become his own fan in order to get a bit of copy: "There is something compellingly familiar about this new comic strip. I feel like it's the story of my life. Brooding, dark political observations laced with wit designed to bring a subtle nod, not a loud laugh. Neil Lisst mixes up his gallows and graveyard humor with more lighthearted stuff. Even Death takes some time off for that gig on Family Guy. Neil has relatives all over the United States and Canada, and some of them are crazy. He's a loner, likes politics, nba ball, and trashing Fox News."

That is, of course, unless someone was such a fan, they are using the name Neil Lisst in homage. Kinda doubting that, though.

[Neil Lisst]

193. Thanks! Good to hear from fans!!

Thank you. You're a pal!

[Stinky The Clown]

152. I think we have more important things to worry about

[Neil Lisst]

153. Why do you think I ran it on December 22nd?

It's not a major item in my lisst of things to worry about, either.

But it is ONE item on my list, as I indicated in the first post.

[mark414]

158. EAT THE RICH

(and for the record i agree with the OP, and strongly)

[Neil Lisst]

161. Watch out! They'll get a fix on your location!

Move yourself and your troops NOW!

IN-COM-ING!!

thanks for the good words

I come from the old school that says "you are what you do." I believe the more one makes, the more wealth one has, the more important it is to NOT act like that makes one special. The first few years after I "made it," I lived somewhat opulently, but I learned within two years I didn't want to be that person, didn't want to have brunch at the country club every Sunday morning. Our choices are who we are, and I know who I am.

I'm a Democrat, a yellow dog, blood oath to the party Democrat. No tuxes for this former country boy.

[mark414]

164. well said

i grew up in a small-ish farm town in wisconsin which just about says it all about where i'm coming from...and from my sporadic work in politics i've come to resent those who will assail the right's war on the poor while wearing a $2000 suit and driving a bmw...a very close friend of mine (who is, for the sake of context, a black woman, and about as left wing as you can get) once said to me that she almost respects republicans more than she does the so-called limousine liberals. "at least they'll be upfront about being uppity and racist" she said.

(and for everyone who is attacking my cartoonist friend, yes, these are sweeping generalizations...but stop attacking the guy and getting all offended, as none of those beltway yuppies gives a shit about anything other than our votes...)

and on edit...very clever user name you got there...

[Neil Lisst]

171. You like me! You really like me!

Speaking of Sally Fields, I've met her at Dem functions. She's tiny.

[mark414]

174. name dropping celebrities? you uppity limousine liberal...

no no no...i kid i kid. but yes i really do like you. your cartoon about the reasons why kerry lost the election had me laughing for awhile...keep up the good work

[Neil Lisst]

184. Yes, I WAS a limousine liberal and a country club Democrat

but only a couple of years, until I thought better of it, found my senses, returned to my roots

[Donald Ian Rankin]

186. And people ask why the Democrats can't win elections...

Actually, to be more exact, this attitude isn't *in itself* one of those reasons, because it's not very prevalent in the Democratic party. The problem is the (widely held, false) perception that it is.

[Neil Lisst]

159. Well, this has been a lively discussion.

I scheduled this cartoon today because I suspected I'd need time to make a lot of replies, and today was a day I could do it. Every couple of weeks, I have one that hits some Dems the wrong way, and those threads are always full of condemnation.

For the most part, my posts are reflective. If you're nice, I'm nice. If thoughtful, I'm thoughtful. If obnoxious ... well, you get the picture.

I do unto others as they do unto me. I wish I could do that other thing, the one that guy talked about all those years ago, but I'm still basically an animal. A cynical animal.

[LittleClarkie]

167. Sure beats having to kick your own threads, I'm sure.

Goodness knows that can't be fun.

[Neil Lisst]

170. I know I can depend on you.

Thanks, clarkie. It's good for you to have a purpose here.

[Robert Cooper]

169. "A cynical animal"

That can be "fixed"
:evilgrin:
:bounce: :bounce:

[Warren DeMontague]

181. I dunno, man- I don't like it when people here tell me not to wear tie-dye

If people want to dress up and have a fancy function, and raise money or organize for a good cause in the process, who the hell am I to criticize it?

[spooky3]

183. It's a big tent party. We need all people who have Dem values.

I agree with you about not liking the black tie functions, but they are not immoral, and they play an important role.

[Neil Lisst]

188. You're absolutely right. I don't want them to leave.

I want them to remember who they are, what they stand for, and why that is incongruous with gauche displays of wealth.

[citizen snips]

195. You are right.

But hey what can you about. The country has been runned by rich people from the beginning.

[Neil Lisst]

196. We can ask them to be more sensitive.

Many of our wealthy contributors are NOT gauche in their appearance or behavior. They don't even attend these functions. Let's say there's 1000 people at the function. Let's say 100 are either a Senator or a Congressperson, so at least one such person at each table. There might be ONE contributing couple at the table. The rest of the people are staffers, party workers, and people who were given a ticket by someone who bought a table or a group of tables.

The number of DEMS who get dolled out in jewelry is not large, but any time you get 100 women dressed to the nines with designer gowns and tens of thousands of dollars in jewelry, it's going to look ritzy.

It's not what I like to see Dems doing, so I say so. This is not new. I've always hated it, and always said so. Only the cartoon expression of the thought is new.

[Neil Lisst]

197. Here's the sister cartoon to the one about the Limo Demos ...