Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Pathetic to see folks bragging about the ability to influence the campaign with money

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 07:32 PM
Original message
Pathetic to see folks bragging about the ability to influence the campaign with money
Edited on Wed Feb-06-08 07:32 PM by bigtree
we need free and equal access for those million dollar ads the media is raking in.

Think about this. Here the media is, pumping up the story about money troubles of candidates when it's their own parsing out of air time that's at the root of it all. Certainly the ability to get ordinary folks to put their money in a campaign is a fine reflection of support and enthusiasm, but to brag on the ability of the 'walking money', the media buys and so forth, to influence the process, is an anathema to progressive principles of campaign reform and the elimination of the overwhelming effect of those influences on our political system.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Donnachaidh Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 07:35 PM
Response to Original message
1. To some people it's all about the BLING
of course, they don't *get* that the bling will never be given to THEM. But pull out those shiny toys and they all stand around going *ooooooohhhhh*.

It's pathetic how shallow we've become.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 07:36 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. I wonder if it's Obama speaking and influencing
or the money he's spending
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sandnsea Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #2
68. Hillary Blew Through $118 MILLION
That is an unprecedented amount of primary money and shows how much Obama has overcome. The real cultish behavior is to spin Hillary being BROKE against Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 07:37 PM
Response to Original message
3. Oh, I don't know.
I think the ability to save or run out of money is an important consideration in a President.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 07:39 PM
Original message
Sure, but you don't have that accounting, except for the spin
The most important thing, to me, is what effect the money spent has on influencing the process.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 07:43 PM
Response to Original message
11. I don't think it's anti-progressive, bigtree.
I think it's just plain cynical. Some of the great progressives of history were also the greatest cynics.

Money wins elections.

Republicans have been outraising us in money for decades now, but now we've got the advantage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 07:46 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. so do the media outlets who benefit from the bulk of those funds.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HiFructosePronSyrup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Do what? Win elections? Please.
Every time somebody's candidate is in trouble it's always the media's fault. "Oh boo hoo hoo. They wouldn't let us get our message out."

God save us from cliches.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. don't be rude
address the subject of the influence of those dollars. Keep celebrating those effects and you will ensure that nothing will be done to solve that. I've lived through enough of these elections to see those pernicious effects of money on access and visibility accelerate. When are we going to say, enough?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Levgreee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 07:37 PM
Response to Original message
4. It is appropriate to be proud of it when it is coming in small donations from individual supporters
Edited on Wed Feb-06-08 07:38 PM by Levgreee
that is an accomplishment.

I agree that the influence of money needs to be diminished, but I am happy with how Obama is getting such strong support from the voters who want to get him elected, as opposed to having tens of millions of dollars, so he can lend himself 5 million.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #4
8. there you have it. It's fine to measure support from the dollars raised,
but is the effect of that influence an artificial snowball, because of the access and visibility it gives the candidate.

Imagine if these candidates didn't have to raise this money to get that visibility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GoldieAZ49 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 08:33 PM
Response to Reply #8
25. Clinton has NATIONAL name recognition, Obama has had to pay to get ads out
to let people know who he is and what he wants to do
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 08:48 PM
Response to Reply #25
30. sad state
which shouldn't be celebrated
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 07:39 PM
Response to Original message
5. Pathetic that many of you think Dubai Dollars are OK in our campaigns when that same
source of money started BCCI bank in the 70s and own the company Bush was handing over our ports and their security just 2yrs ago. A deal ADVOCATED by Bill Clinton the same president who DEEP-SIXED the BCCI reports outstanding matters throughout the 90s.

No problems for you there, eh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #5
10. oh bullshit. I don't think it's fine at all
I don't think that money should be the way our candidates get access and visibility. A reform of that would eliminate this abomination of sources and effects.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 08:27 PM
Response to Reply #10
23. But you question Kerry's MORTGAGE and compare it ethically to a heavy flow
Edited on Wed Feb-06-08 08:30 PM by blm
of millions from Dubai that has gone to Clintons?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 08:36 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. Dubai? Resko?
Did I spell the slum-lord's name right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. Rezko's dirty Chicago deals blew back into the WTC on 9-11, bigtree?
Armed terrorists for decades? Flooded US cities with tons of cheap IranContra cocaine? Funded nuclear proliferation network that is now being used to claim war with Iran is necessary?

What happened to your sense of proportion? What the heck, big?

Rezko on par with Jackson Stephens, Dubai, Marc Rich, AQ Khan, et al.


Absurd.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 08:49 PM
Response to Reply #28
31. I think your linkage of the Dubai speaking fees to 9-11 is despicable
go argue it out with someone else.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 08:52 PM
Response to Reply #31
36. Speaking fees? Wake up! He just got 20 MILLION via Yucaipa (Burkle) who got it from Dubai.
Edited on Wed Feb-06-08 09:01 PM by blm
Exactly like Bush's Harken deal was set up. Geez, big. There have been several threads on this. All just coincidence?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #36
38. Kerry has 'friends.' None like Burkle? No investment questions?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 10:40 PM
Response to Reply #38
41. Actually even though the Boston Globe watched him like a hawk,
he really didn't have any investment questions.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 10:42 PM
Response to Reply #41
42. These issues surrounding the Clintons raised here didn't reach any critical mass
Edited on Wed Feb-06-08 10:43 PM by bigtree
in the main press either. But, Kerry's were raised.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 09:41 AM
Response to Reply #42
47. The general consensus though was that Kerry was unusually clean
that was not the consensus with the Clintons.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #47
51. I equate the stretched out ties linked to the one buisness associate
as akin to the Skull and Bones nonsense we endured in that campaign. And I'm not the least bit interested in bring to surface all of the bullshit that came fro Kerry's opponents about his money. Where do you begin with the ties? Is his wife's money, from republican Heinz, squeaky clean? No associations there? After all, we're being asked in these charges to accept that Hillary is inexorably ties to Bill's affairs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 11:40 AM
Response to Reply #51
56. fer chrissakes, as if deep-sixing BCCI report that included names you ACCEPT MONEY FROM
Edited on Thu Feb-07-08 11:44 AM by blm
before you took office and are still receiving NOW is anywhere near the same as Kerry being married to a woman who inherited wealth.

Sense of proportion, bigtree. Did Heinz foods' agenda lead to 9-11 or did BCCI's agenda lead to 9-11?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #56
58. Again, I don't accept that ANYTHING Clinton did 'led to 9-11'
I'm going to have to put these post from you on the 9-11 linkage into my own 'conspiracy' file . . . and just ignore them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 12:13 PM
Response to Reply #58
59. BCCI matters led directly to 9-11. Those matters were not ALLOWED to be fully vetted
because Bill had no interest in the pursuit of those matters.

You NEED to ignore that truth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #59
60. bullshit. You NEED to keep selling it to knock down the Clintons
to get at Bush.

Fucked up approach.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #60
61. Then chew on the LIST of Outstanding Matters, bigtree. Try some TRUTH on the way you USED TO
It is PLAIN TO SEE That a 9-11 event never should have happened - these operations should have been fully exposed.

Just read the 20 questions left unanswered, and it is apparent that had they been a priority for ANY administration, a 9-11 event would never have happened, and NO BUSH would ever be even allowed near the White House.


Matters For Further Investigation

There have been a number of matters which the Subcommittee has received some information on, but has not been able to investigate adequately, due such factors as lack of resources, lack of time, documents being withheld by foreign governments, and limited evidentiary sources or witnesses. Some of the main areas which deserve further investigation include:


1. The extent of BCCI's involvement in Pakistan's nuclear program. As set forth in the chapter on BCCI in foreign countries, there is good reason to conclude that BCCI did finance Pakistan's nuclear program through the BCCI Foundation in Pakistan, as well as through BCCI-Canada in the Parvez case. However, details on BCCI's involvement remain unavailable. Further investigation is needed to understand the extent to which BCCI and Pakistan were able to evade U.S. and international nuclear non-proliferation regimes to acquire nuclear technologies.


2. BCCI's manipulation of commodities and securities markets in Europe and Canada. The Subcommittee has received information that remains not fully substantiated that BCCI defrauded investors, as well as some major U.S. and European financial firms, through manipulating commodities and securities markets, especially in Canada, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg. This alleged fraud requires further investigation in those countries.


3. BCCI's activities in India, including its relationship with the business empire of the Hinduja family. The Subcommittee has not had access to BCCI records regarding India. The substantial lending by BCCI to the Indian industrialist family, the Hindujas, reported in press accounts, deserves further scrutiny, as do the press reports concerning alleged kick-backs and bribes to Indian officials.


4. BCCI's relationships with convicted Iraqi arms dealer Sarkis Soghanalian, Syrian drug trafficker, terrorist, and arms trafficker Monzer Al-Kassar, and other major arms dealers. Sarkenalian was a principal seller of arms to Iraq. Monzer Al-Kassar has been implicated in terrorist bombings in connection with terrorist organizations such as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. Other arms dealers, including some who provided machine guns and trained Medellin cartel death squads, also used BCCI. Tracing their assets through the bank would likely lead to important information concerning international terrorist and arms trafficker networks.


5. The use of BCCI by central figures in arms sales to Iran during the 1980's. The late Cyrus Hashemi, a key figure in allegations concerning an alleged deal involving the return of U.S. hostages from Iran in 1980, banked at BCCI London. His records have been withheld from disclosure to the Subcommittee by a British judge. Their release might aid in reaching judgments concerning Hashemi's activities in 1980, with the CIA under President Carter and allegedly with William Casey.


6. BCCI's activities with the Central Bank of Syria and with the Foreign Trade Mission of the Soviet Union in London. BCCI was used by both the Syrian and Soviet governments in the period in which each was involved in supporting activities hostile to the United States. Obtaining the records of those financial transactions would be critical to understanding what the Soviet Union under Brezhnev, Chernenko, and Andropov was doing in the West; and might document the nature and extent of Syria's support for international terrorism.


7. BCCI's involvement with foreign intelligence agencies. A British source has told the Bank of England and British investigators that BCCI was used by numerous foreign intelligence agencies in the United Kingdom. The British intelligence service, the MI-5, has sealed documents from BCCI's records in the UK which could shed light on this allegation.


8. The financial dealings of BCCI directors with Charles Keating and several Keating affiliates and front-companies, including the possibility that BCCI related entities may have laundered funds for Keating to move them outside the United States. The Subcommittee found numerous connections among Keating and BCCI-related persons and entities, such as BCCI director Alfred Hartman; CenTrust chief David Paul and CenTrust itself; Capcom front-man Lawrence Romrell; BCCI shipping affiliate, the Gokal group and the Gokal family; and possibly Ghaith Pharaon. The ties between BCCI and Keating's financial empire require further investigation.


9. BCCI's financing of commodities and other business dealings of international criminal financier Marc Rich. Marc Rich remains the most important figure in the international commodities markets, and remains a fugitive from the United States following his indictment on securities fraud. BCCI lending to Rich in the 1980's amounted to tens of millions of dollars. Moreover, Rich's commodities firms were used by BCCI in connection with BCCI's involving in U.S. guarantee programs through the Department of Agriculture. The nature and extent of Rich's relationship with BCCI requires further investigation.


10. The nature, extent and meaning of the ownership of shares of other U.S. financial institutions by Middle Eastern political figures. Political figures and members of the ruling family of various Middle Eastern countries have very substantial investments in the United States, in some cases, owning substantial shares of major U.S. banks. Given BCCI's routine use of nominees from the Middle East, and the pervasive practice of using nominees within the Middle East, further investigation may be warranted of Middle Eastern ownership of domestic U.S. financial institutions.


11. The nature, extent, and meaning of real estate and financial investments in the United States by major shareholders of BCCI. BCCI's shareholders and front-men have made substantial investments in real estate throughout the United States, owning major office buildings in such key cities as New York and Washington, D.C. Given BCCI's pervasiveness criminality, and the role of these shareholders and front-men in the BCCI affair, a complete review of their holdings in the United States is warranted.


12. BCCI's collusion in Savings & Loan fraud in the U.S. The Subcommittee found ties between BCCI and two failed Savings and Loan institutions, CenTrust, which BCCI came to have a controlling interest in, and Caprock Savings and Loan in Texas, and as noted above, the involvement of BCCI figures with Charles Keating and his business empire. In each case, BCCI's involvement cost the U. S. taxpayers money. A comprehensive review of BCCI's account holders in the U.S. and globally might well reveal additional such cases. In addition, the issue of whether David Paul and CenTrust's political relationships were used by Paul on behalf of BCCI merits further investigation.


13. The sale of BCCI affiliate Banque de Commerce et de Placements (BCP) in Geneva, to the Cukorova Group of Turkey, which owned an entity involved in the BNL Iraqi arms sales, among others. Given BNL's links to BCCI, and Cukorova Groups' involvement through its subsidiary, Entrade, with BNL in the sales to Iraq, the swift sale of BCP to Cukorova just weeks after BCCI's closure -- prior to due diligence being conducted -- raises questions as to whether a prior relationship existed between BCCI and Cukorova, and Cukorova's intentions in making the purchase. Within the past year, Cukorova also applied to purchase a New York bank. Cukorova's actions pertaining to BCP require further investigation in Switzerland by Swiss authorities, and by the Federal Reserve New York.


14. BCCI's role in China. As noted in the chapter on BCCI's activities in foreign countries, BCCI had extensive activity in China, and the Chinese government allegedly lost $500 million when BCCI closed, mostly from government accounts. While there have been allegations that bribes and pay-offs were involved, these allegations require further investigation and detail to determine what actually happened, and who was involved.


15. The relationship between Capcom and BCCI, between Capcom and the intelligence community, and between Capcom's shareholders and U.S. telecommunications industry figures. The Subcommittee was able to interview people and review documents concerning Capcom that no other investigators had to date interviewed or reviewed. Much more needs to be done to understand what Capcom was doing in the United States, the United Kingdom, Egypt, Oman, and the Middle East, including whether the firm was, as has been alleged but not proven, used by the intelligence community to move funds for intelligence operations; and whether any person involved with Capcom was seeking secretly to acquire interests in the U.S. telecommunications industry.


16. The relationship of important BCCI figures and important intelligence figures to the collapse of the Hong Kong Deposit and Guaranty Bank and Tetra Finance (HK) in 1983. The circumstances surrounding the collpase of these two Hong Kong banks; the Hong Kong banks' practices of using nominees, front-companies, and back-to-back financial transactions; the Hong Banks' directors having included several important BCCI figures, including Ghanim Al Mazrui, and a close associate of then CIA director William Casey; all raise the question of whether there was a relationship between these two institutions and BCCI-Hong Kong, and whether the two Hong Kong institutions were used for domestic or foreign intelligence operations.


17. BCCI's activities in Atlanta and its acquisition of the National Bank of Georgia through First American. Although the Justice Department indictments of Clark Clifford and Robert Altman cover portions of how BCCI acquired National Bank of Georgia, other important allegations regarding the possible involvement of political figures in Georgia in BCCI's activities there remain outside the indictment. These allegations, as well as the underlying facts regarding BCCI's activities in Georgia, require further investigation.


18. The relationship between BCCI and the Banca Nazionale del Lavoro. BCCI and the Atlanta Branch of BNL had an extensive relationship in the United States, with the Atlanta Branch of BNL having a substantial number of accounts in BCCI's Miami offices. BNL was, according to federal indictments, a significant financial conduit for weapons to Iraq. BCCI also made loans to Iraq, although of a substantially smaller nature. Given the criminality of both institutions, and their interlocking activities, further investigation of the relationship could produce further understanding of Saddam Hussein's international network for acquiring weapons, and how Iraq evaded governmental restrictions on such weapons acquisitions.


19. The alleged relationship between the late CIA director William Casey and BCCI. As set forth in the chapter on intelligence, numerous trails lead from BCCI to Casey, and from Casey to BCCI, and the investigation has been unable to follow any of them to the end to determine whether there was indeed a relationship, and if there was, its nature and extent. If any such relationship existed, it could have a significant impact on the findings and conclusions concerning the CIA and BCCI's role in U.S. foreign policy and intelligence operations during the Casey era. The investigation's work detailing the ties of BCCI to the intelligence community generally also remains far from complete, and much about these ties remains obscure and in need of further investigation.


20. Money laundering by other major international banks. Numerous BCCI officials told the Subcommittee that BCCI's money laundering was no different from activities they observed at other international banks, and provided the names of a number of prominent U.S. and European banks which they alleged engaged in money laundering. There is no question that BCCI's laundering of drug money, while pervading the institution, constituted a small component of the total money laundering taking place in international banking. Further investigation to determine which international banks are soliciting and handling drug money should be undertaken.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 12:22 PM
Response to Reply #61
63. what's with the spam? I just don't hold Clinton responsible for all of that
just because he refused to focus his administration on the ex-president. The end of his term is self-explanatory to anyone who was looking on. Republican Congress and an impeachment. But, that's far from the cover-up or suppression of some prosecution of BCCI you are alleging.

Funny, I've never heard John Kerry accuse Clinton of any impropriety over his lack of investigations of the former president . . . even though he was so integral to the investigations into BCCI.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 12:31 PM
Response to Reply #63
65. It wasn't JUST focus on last president - these matters were CURRENT and went unresolved
because of BILL CLINTONs decision to ignore them.

And NOW he accepts MILLIONS of dollars from the VERY SAME PEOPLE who were behind BCCI.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 12:36 PM
Response to Reply #65
70. How do you know what was investigated during his term?
Just because there weren't prosecutions or indictments doesn't mean these issues didn't get the attention of his Justice Dept. Are you accusing Janet Reno of conspiracy in this also?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 12:48 PM
Response to Reply #70
73. He never directed Reno to pursue them. And I did something you didn't then - I PAID ATTENTION
Edited on Thu Feb-07-08 12:49 PM by blm
just as I had been paying attention to terror matters since the end of the 80s.

I defended Bill mightily for all that time BELIEVING he had a good reason that someday he'd share with us after his presidency - instead, he wrote that huge book and LEFT OUT any mention whatsoever of BCCI and all its matters. fer chrissakes, Marc Rich was sold as tax evader not as a key figure involved in IranContra and BCCI. Bill thinks Dems are dumb and inattentive in the same way Bush-Rove believe Republicans are.

If, as you say, his presidency dealt with all those serious matters, then why was not one word of it included in his book?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 12:38 PM
Response to Reply #56
71. Not to mention that JK does not control THK's money
He married a lovely, brilliant woman, who shared many values with him. Their book tour was amazing as it showed how well they worked together - coming at environmental issues from different positions from which to effect it. THK, leading by example, on green building was a major force in making Pittsburgh the greenest city. Over the years, she has had a huge impact on that field. She also has hosted for 12 years an annual conference on woman's health, oncology and environmental toxins. Since seeing that, there have been times when it is easy to see where her work influences things he has worked on in the Senate. It is interesting that after they met at the Rio conference, they came back to work with a couple other people to co-found Second Nature, which has a goal to teach people how to teach sustainability. http://www.secondnature.org/aboutsn/aboutsn.htm

Teresa Heinz Kerry is far more interesting as a person than for her money. Had the media opted to really introduce her to the country in terms of all she has done and the person she is, it would have completely validated her husband as the good person he is. She is incredible - and the Republicans knew it - many had at an earlier time liked the idea of her as first lady.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #71
72. wow. do you not see the irony in that remark against the indictment of Hillary
over Bill's money?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 12:54 PM
Response to Reply #72
75. JKs is LEGALLY separate and has been from DAY ONE of their marriage.
And you never answered about how you believe there's no difference between Heinz Foods' agenda and BCCI's agenda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 12:59 PM
Response to Reply #72
79. Actually, no
If THK's money were questionable - it would have been as much an issue as Bill's money IF it is questionable. We have seen threads about Michelle Obama's positions on corporate boards.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 12:20 PM
Response to Reply #51
62. Everyone knows where Heinz's money came from - look in your refigerator
John Heinz was a moderate Republican, who had a good reputation. On many issues - the environment, his excellent work on the banking committee against corruption, etc, he was very good. His chief of staff still works with THK in her foundation on issues like women's pensions and healthcare. I live in NJ and there were moderate Republicans who were comfortable with Kerry because - as one woman put it, THK wouldn't have married him if he were sleazy.

I know that the Republicans lurking in the gutter hit Kerry on everything - One idiot's site even claimed his name was not John Forbes Kerry but was changed to get the initials. The point is that there were legitimate media that would have surfaced any real conflicts of interest and they tried- but there were none the stuck. The nature of campaign financing means no one is pure as the driven snow, but Kerry is one of the cleanest.

As I said - why not spend your time finding the answers to the charges made against Clinton and dispelling them if they are lies - rather than making baseless claims that Kerry, who is not running is corrupt too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 12:32 PM
Response to Reply #62
66. It's tunnel vision from you. NOTHING illegal has been proved in any reputable forum
Edited on Thu Feb-07-08 12:33 PM by bigtree
nothing proven in any court relating the Clinton's to what is alleged. Just innuendo over a Dubai business relationship. Under their royalty, there are numerous ties and extensions that U.S. business interests associate themselves with just by doing business in their growing market. What's been done with the Clinton association is a line has been drawn from this one business associate to anything improper that occurred from other associations of that business man. NOTHING has been shown which proves Clinton did ANYTHING improper, or has ANYTHING to do with any pernicious influences or actions in Dubai. This is just a smear by association. It makes sense that, after all of the time this has been out in the public, it hasn't gained a bit of traction.

Yet, you continue to assert that the *Kerrys are immaculate in their finacial dealings; beyond reproach. That didn't stop their detractors from 'raising questions' like these charges do against the Clintons. I'm not going to further ANY of them, but don't act as if there haven't been questions in Boston about Kerry's finances, or those of his wife and her ex-husband, no matter how philanthropic they've been.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 12:55 PM
Response to Reply #66
77. How do you get "immaculate" from:
"The nature of campaign financing means no one is pure as the driven snow, but Kerry is one of the cleanest."

You are the one with tunnel vision - What I was saying is:

- Stop implying that Kerry is dirty through insinuations - as a bizarre counter to accusations against the Clintons. The two issues are independent. Even if you could prove Kerry was bad, it doesn't make Clinton good.

- Counter the Clinton accusations as you did in the first paragraph - notice my original response in this thread said what you said here on Dubai. On that and the Burkle money, I said that no one has yet clearly identified, mush less proved any wrong doing.

I content my comments here are far fairer to the Clintons - demanding the same level of proof that there is wrongdoing - that I would demand if it were Kerry. You are not being consistent - you are correctly saying that there is no proof on those Clinton charges but you are making vague nebulous charges that against Kerry.

There are many things you may not like about the Kerrys, but they are pretty scrupulous. (Though you can make a case that his elite connections and her wealth made it easier for them to be so.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #77
80. it's the hypocricy in the accusations of associations which I wanted to highlight
Edited on Thu Feb-07-08 01:26 PM by bigtree
and the similarity of the Dubai charges which stem from Bill Clinton doing business in Dubai, to the in-state 'investigations' into Kerry's finances. I don't believe there is any there-there to either. I'm a strong advocate of Kerry, but, none of these big money investments are immune from criticism because of ties to businessmen who do unscrupulous things. That's one reason I focused on Kerry, as a comparison with my current presidential choice, and, because Kerry was so central to the case blm and her journalist are making about Clinton's involvement in some BCCI cover-up and Kerry's experience against the dynamic of charges from opponents and the lack of actual prosecutions.

As I asked blm, why didn't Kerry ever speak against Bill Clinton in relationship to anything he did or should have done regarding BCCI.

I think blm's argument and yours got mixed up in a similar diversion from the op.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
karynnj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #80
83. They didn't get mixed up - you mixed them up
"I think blm's argument and yours got mixed up in a similar diversion from the op." There were never any "in-state investigations" of Kerry's finances - saying that can be interpreted as Kerry having been under investigation. The Clintons DID have their finances investigated and though nothing was indictable, there were somethings not 100% Kosher.

The investments you list for Kerry are not questionable - they are stocks and mutual funds that you and I could buy - purchased on the open market. Even if a company on that list did something wrong, it would not reflect on the Senator. Those are PASSIVE investments. What seems clear from Kerry's life story is that he has avoided things that would lead to his integrity being questioned. Even in 1984, he avoided profiting from off shoring because he thought it was wrong and wanted to speak and work against it in the Senate so he avoided those investments. There is a different level of scrupulousness here between Kerry and the Clintons.

As to BCCI, Kerry did put what he could in the Senate record of what needed to be done. He also has spoken on BCCI related things sporatically when issues come up, but they get little press. He has not attacked Clinton likely because it was complicated, wouldn't help and could hurt the Democratic party.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #38
48. Did Kerry deep-six one of the most important reports on government corruption
that had the most significant blowback for this nation on 9-11?

Is Bill banking dollars that came from the exact same Dubai royals who started BCCI and were protected by the deep-sixing of the BCCI report's outstanding matters in the 90s?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 11:17 AM
Response to Reply #48
49. are you selectively broadcasting bits and pieces of allegations
Edited on Thu Feb-07-08 11:17 AM by bigtree
. . . which haven't attracted the attention or concern of major media outlets, despite hyperventilating about this on the web for ages? When there is some prosecution or some censure from someone other than an investigative journalist, I'll give them credence. But these rehashed charges are being brought up in this campaign, opportunistically, to discredit the Clinton's with innuendo; including the despicable charge that Bill Clinton's actions or dealings had ANYTHING to do with 9-11. That one point has turned me off of all of this. It looks like typical, selective, election year rumormongering. Selective, because there quite a few questions about the finances and associations of YOUR candidate, Obama, which you haven't bothered to discuss or look into with any great detail. All you seem to be able to do is holler '9-11!!, 9-11, Dubai!!

Now, accusing Bill Clinton of covering up the elder Bush's dealings ignores the point I've made to you before, that there was a determination by Clinton to focus on advancing solutions to domestic concerns, to the subjugation of scandal-mongering. What you suggest is that he put all of that aside and take whatever new capital he had in Wash. and throw it down on a rehashing of the campaign against Bush which put him in office. Clinton didn't think that was a good idea, and, years later, after enjoying the benefits from those years he was in office, and reflecting on the changes and successes he did spark with his presidency and advocacy, neither do I.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 11:21 AM
Response to Reply #49
50. So he says - but how did that work out? How did it work out for Dems? For this country in
Edited on Thu Feb-07-08 11:36 AM by blm
the LONGTERM? For the world in the LONGTERM?

It was the WORST DECISION he could have made and he made it because OPEN GOVERNMENT that is accountable to the people is not a PRIORITY in his worldview.

What part of that is so difficult to understand? LIES - BIG lies have DANGEROUS CONSEQUENCES for this nation and for the world.

You want to protect the BIG LIES in perpetuity? You think this nation DOESN'T DESERVE BETTER?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 11:27 AM
Response to Reply #50
53. I think you're exaggerating my point and using your bias as a substitute for my own concerns
I followed his presidency from the standpoint of getting his legislation through. That effort absorbed most of his presidency. He may or may not have had the political ability to do what you wanted, but, I still argue that he served the country well with the accomplishments achieved behind his presidency and advocacy. I'm not going to stoop to blaming our democrats for the republican abuses. Not every prosecution is successful, no matter how sincere or committed. I suspect the one you contemplate against Bush wouldn't be a cakewalk either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 11:53 AM
Response to Reply #53
57. You believe he bypassed those matters to protect legislation not Jackson Stephens
the guy who BANKROLLED his political career in Arkansas and his primary campaign.

Either way - his decison proved DANGEROUS for the world. He was too naive then and STILL naive by accepting millions of dollars from the very people who were protected when he deep-sixed the BCCI report.

OK - Bill is naive. Hillary is naive because she LET Bill make these enormously naive moves that led our nation to its greatest danger.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
flpoljunkie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 07:39 PM
Response to Original message
6. What's pathetic: Seeing Hillary's ads talking about the "special interests" when she's received more
Edited on Wed Feb-06-08 07:41 PM by flpoljunkie
money from them than any candidate in either party. Now that's rich!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 07:43 PM
Response to Reply #6
12. different subject.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 08:19 PM
Response to Reply #12
22. Nah. It's about hypocrisy in both cases.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ElsewheresDaughter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 07:40 PM
Response to Original message
7. I hardly recognize this place anymore....a pity that it feels like freeperville more with every
Edited on Wed Feb-06-08 07:45 PM by ElsewheresDaughter
Clinton bashing thread
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jenmito Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 07:48 PM
Response to Reply #7
16. It's primary season. Get used to seeing your candidate being talked about and weaknesses pointed
out. Fellow Dems. aren't freepers just because they point out things about your candidate that you don't want to hear about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sfam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 07:42 PM
Response to Original message
9. I LOVE that money is coming from small donors instead of big corps and PACs
This is as close as you can get to a powerhouse publically financed campaign. I don't think my measly few hundred toward Obama is buying me ANY access. AT ALL. This is a good thing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 07:45 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. I like that too, but the need and effect of those funds is contrary to that grass roots support
access would lessen the effect of those dollars, and that would be a good thing for the process, all around.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hedgehog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 07:50 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. But just how do you reach the grass roots without money?
I've read that Obama puts a lot of time and effort into local organizing. Any organization that uses a lot of volunteers generally has at least some paid professionals to guide the operation.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 07:55 PM
Response to Reply #17
19. You don't, right now. But, consider the effect of resigining ourselves to this
Equal and regular access to the media for our candidates would be the smartest reform.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sfam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 10:51 PM
Response to Reply #17
43. Obama is taking FULL advantage of Social networking software
Web 2.0 applications are driving his website...most cool stuff! Truly!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Big Blue Marble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 08:00 PM
Response to Original message
20. Many of us are not getting to vote in this campaign until then May or June.
This is the way we can support the process now.

Money is the juice of politics. If you do not like it then vote for campaign reform.

In the mean time, how else would a new and unknown candidate get the word out going against
a brand like Clinton? Money is the only way.

It is not bragging to know that your candidate has the money to go the distance.

Money from a lot of small donations may just may be the deciding factor in this race.

If it is, I for one, will be glad I participated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 08:10 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. yep. as long as the system benefits our candidate, why change it?
viva capitalism
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GoldieAZ49 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 08:30 PM
Response to Original message
24. the media isn't parsing they SELL ad time
unless you prefer a government run media

I don't!!!

There is PBS and CSPAN, but it doesn't reach the mainstream

Gas, Grass or Ass, nobody rides for free!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 08:37 PM
Response to Reply #24
27. hail unbridled capitalism. Doen't the government SELL access to airwaves
That would mean that the public owns those airwaves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kelligesq Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 08:52 PM
Response to Reply #27
34. bingo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kelligesq Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 08:52 PM
Response to Reply #27
35. bingo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GoldieAZ49 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 09:01 PM
Response to Reply #27
37. no they license it
The capitalist system is the best!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GoldieAZ49 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 08:47 PM
Response to Original message
29. If Money could buy a nomination
Why isn't Mitt Romney the winner for the Republicans?

He has spent more of his own money than all other candidates on both sides.

How did that work out for him???????????????????
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #29
32. You have a point. We were outspent by the republicans in the last election.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MzShellG Donating Member (835 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 08:50 PM
Response to Original message
33. It's not just about buying media and not at all about campaign influence..
It's about budgeting. The economy is a huge issue with us regular folks. Also, it takes MONEY to travel in a campaign, to get your message out to the voters, and to PAY your staff who works their asses off to get you elected....etc. Money matters. Stop trying to move the goal post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 09:21 PM
Response to Reply #33
39. you made sense, except for the goal post crack
If we simply view these issues from the elevation of a winning campaign we will never be compelled to change the system
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MzShellG Donating Member (835 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 09:26 PM
Response to Reply #39
40. Okay..
I retract the goal post comment. It is definitely the media who is at fault.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PermanentRevolution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 11:05 PM
Response to Original message
44. I'm with you, bigtree
I'm generally opposed to any system that serves to concentrate power into the hands of an elite few, and the ridiculous amounts of money needed to run a successful campaign these days certainly qualifies. Candidates without a massive campaign infrastructure are incapable of competing on the national stage, a setup that has continually stymied the efforts of much better candidates than the ones who eventually make it through, based solely on their respective abilities to raise enough money to endure a long campaign.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sfam Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #44
45. How much influence has my $300 dollars to Obama's campaign bought me?
Edited on Wed Feb-06-08 11:09 PM by sfam
I'm gonna DEMAND a political appointee job, dammit!!!

Seriously, I just don't see it if we're talking about individual small donor contributions. I cannot imagine anything healthier than that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PermanentRevolution Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Feb-06-08 11:20 PM
Response to Reply #45
46. Really? I can...
I'd say a system where it's not necessary for a candidate to raise millions of dollars in order to be competitive on the national stage would be much healthier. Who knows how many truly brilliant leaders have gone undiscovered merely because they couldn't compete in the Great Cash Race?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 11:30 AM
Response to Reply #45
54. perfectly healthy and indicative of support
but, not the beat-all that some are portraying it as. And, the perpetuation of the system is driven by the winning campaign's influence on stifling reform to lock in their magic formula for success for the next time around. How do we get to campaign reform?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 11:24 AM
Response to Original message
52. We ALL want campaign reform.
Edited on Thu Feb-07-08 11:25 AM by rucky
Both candidates want campaign reform.

We won't get it if we play by a more restrictive set of rules than the opposition. Edwards tried and failed.

I think we're more happy with the prospect of beating the Republicans at their own game. At least I hope so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 11:32 AM
Response to Reply #52
55. for now, perhaps. But, maybe we should try and manage our attitudes toward the money
Edited on Thu Feb-07-08 11:32 AM by bigtree
in a way which helps our arguments in the off-season.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bonobo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 12:23 PM
Response to Original message
64. I do agree except that the money is representative of a "Grass Roots Mvmt." nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HughMoran Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 12:35 PM
Response to Original message
67. Agreed
The scumbags here boasting about taking another candidate out based on money are right-wingers IMO and will henceforth be treated as such.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stevietheman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 12:36 PM
Response to Original message
69. I don't see a real difference between grassroots donations and public funding.
We should laud either approach. They're both good for the people's interest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eleny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 12:52 PM
Response to Original message
74. Money always influences campaigns
And it seems to me that each of our candidates are and will be doing just fine in that department until this primary is over. Their supporters will not abandon them and will dig deep to help out.

What we need to do is keep influencing our candidate of choice as we can with funds or volunteering time. Otherwise, we might as well give up to the lobbyists/corporations and forget the whole thing called America.

I want public financing of elections. But until then we only have our wallets.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jillan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 12:54 PM
Response to Original message
76. The fact that we are in a contest to see who can raise more MILLIONS makes
me sick.

If either candidate right now said I am going to take my millions earned and donate it to the homeless - they would win.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 12:56 PM
Response to Original message
78. I love Clinton-supporter hypocrisy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bigtree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #78
81. I don't expect flamethrowers to see past their own hypocricy
nothing in that thread is a contradiction of this one. Again, because you obviously have little time from your bombing campaigns, raising money is fine. It can be a good measure of support, as in the Obama campaign. But there is a contradiction in celebrating the influence on the system (as some folks here have done) and touting campaign reform when our candidates are at a disadvantage. The solution would be free and equal access to the airwaves, since it's the media who benefits from the money and awards attention and praise on those who are flush with money to spend on their networks.

Get it?

Raising money=fine

Equating that ability with support=fine

Celebrating the influence on the system=contrary to the effort to reform the system and reduce the influence of that money on the system.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occam Bandage Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Feb-07-08 03:54 PM
Response to Reply #81
82. Hm. Let's see. You're complaining that Obama supporters are celebrating fundraising in one thread,
and in another thread you're celebrating Clinton's fundraising.

But no, I'm the hypocritical one here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 03:59 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC