While the public polls show a public disgusted with the two party duopoly on power and demanding change, the same figures are emerging as the choices for the next president. The most obvious is Hillary Clinton who is reportedly positioning herself now as a candidate of change — a curious role for one of the most establishment figures on the political scene. The other leading candidate is Joe Biden who has been a source of continued gaffs as Vice President and viewed as the other leading candidate of establishment interests. However, there is an effort to reinvent Clinton who supported various wars under Bush and Obama and did little to stop torture and surveillance programs. Indeed, the new MSNBC host Ronan Farrow has proclaimed that the “Clintons represent a style of honesty that the public craves.” Farrow does not appear to remember Bill Clinton’s public and sworn denials in the Lewinsky affair or other scandals. Indeed, the new Hillary Clinton is already attracting the type of influence seekers associated with the two parties. Just this last month, Goldman Sachs gave Clinton almost a half of million dollars for just two speeches in one week. The event is made more curious by fact that speech was described as “prepared remarks” followed by limited questions. It is doubtful that Clinton informed Goldman Sachs of anything other than the most predictable remarks from a politician — not some critical re-orientation of their investment strategy. UPDATE: Chuck Schumer has already endorsed Clinton to be the next president.
In speeches on October 24 and October 29, Goldman Sachs gave Clinton $200,000 a speech. Thursday’s speech was a closed door meeting with Goldman and its clients. The prior Tuesday she spoke at a session hosted by Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein.
From Goldman Sachs to the Carlyle group, business interests are lining up to give huge amounts of cash to the Clintons personally for such speeches.
In the meantime, the two parties are moving to ensure that the same faces and choices will be given to voters despite overwhelming discontent over the two-party monopoly on power. With a system protecting incumbents and control of the two main parties, such public opposition remains largely immaterial and business interests are already putting money down on candidates like Clinton — and the “style of honesty” that they crave.
This reminds me of the wedding tributes collected in the Godfather movie.
Nothing will prevent Ms & Mr Clinton from being reelected, unless Bill has a Heart attack in the next year or so. All Dems need to do is point out how much the deficits drop under Dems & rise under Repubs, plus casting doubt on Cruz’s mothers birth certificate, Game over lol
Its about the hypocrisy stupid
& from the 08 race, it sure seams like Hillery is a weak, lousy leader- she was constantly battered by her advisers, never able to dominate them, making me fear she will be a poor president
David,
so now you are against universal suffrage?? Is that in the Bible someplace? Only males with property can vote now? Is that males with more than one acre or two acres? If the property is jointly owned with a female, can the male only count 1/2 of the property towards his exclusive right to vote?
Yeah, those damn, “dumb and unsuccessful,” people really are the problem.
On the contrary, David.
I answered your question by pointing out the fundamental flaw of a position not based in universal sufferage.
Namely that if you don’t have universal sufferage, you by definition have an oligarchy and not a truly democratic representative republic, ergo your position is anti-democratic, anti-egalitarian and pro-oligarchy.
Gene H wrote: “I answered your question by pointing out the fundamental flaw of a position not based in universal sufferage [sic].”
You are confusing universal suffrage with equal suffrage. Allowing people / corporations to vote with their money by supporting candidates financially does not take away the vote from anyone.
Do you or do you not recognize the imbalance created by giving every person an equal vote?
If you have a problem with unequal suffrage, you probably want to change the structure of Congress, specifically the Senate, so that representation is based upon the population. You probably also want to do away with the Electoral College and just elect the executive offices based upon popular vote. Is that what you want to do, or have you just not thought very much about these issues?
Yes voting with money is more powerful. Citizens unitedi is proving that
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/29/texas-voter-id-law-women-vote They can accomplish it through the new voter id laws that make it harder for women to vote, Elaine.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-41240626/obamas-middle-class-tax-cut-yes-the-one-you-never-heard-of-may-expire/
davidm wrote:
“The first step is to realize that the concept of equal suffrage will destroy democratic governments. Then we can do the hard work of determining the details of how to construct a good democratic process. Equal suffrage is a lazy approach to the problem of making democracy fair.”
*****
Is this what you have in mind?
Tea Party Nation President Says It ‘Makes A Lot Of Sense’ To Restrict Voting Only To Property Owners
By Zaid Jilani
November 30, 2010
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2010/11/30/132532/tea-party-voting-property/
Every week, the Tea Party Nation hosts a weekly radio program, calling itself a “home for conservatives.” Two weeks ago, Tea Party Nation President Judson Phillips hosted the program and discussed changes that he felt should be made to voting rights in the United States. He explained that the founders of the country originally put “certain restrictions on who gets the right to vote.” He continued, “One of those was you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense, because if you’re a property owner you actually have a vested stake in the community. If you’re not a property owner, you know, I’m sorry but property owners have a little bit more of a vested interest in the community than non-property owners”:
PHILLIPS: The Founding Fathers originally said, they put certain restrictions on who gets the right to vote. It wasn’t you were just a citizen and you got to vote. Some of the restrictions, you know, you obviously would not think about today. But one of those was you had to be a property owner. And that makes a lot of sense, because if you’re a property owner you actually have a vested stake in the community. If you’re not a property owner, you know, I’m sorry but property owners have a little bit more of a vested interest in the community than non-property owners.
*****
Or maybe you think women should be denied the right to vote?
“Critics state that the tax cuts, including those given to middle and lower income households, failed to spur growth. Critics have further stated that the cuts also increased the budget deficit, shifted the tax burden from the rich to the middle and working classes, and further increased already high levels of income inequality”
Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP) has concluded that the tax cuts have conferred the “largest benefits, by far on the highest income households.” CBPP cites data from the Tax Policy Center, stating that 24.2% of tax savings went to households in the top one percent of income compared to the share of 8.9% that went to the middle 20 percent.[4] The underlying policy has been criticized by Democratic Party congressional opponents for giving tax cuts to the rich with capital gains tax breaks while acknowledging some benefit extended to middle and lower income brackets as well.[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_tax_cuts
Re Fox no it is proven multiple times xmultiple times that Fox is not fair and balanced.
LOL yes Fox news, that’s “fair and balanced” only if your definitions of those words include opposite world.
As for “Why would you assume that there is no imbalance in giving the dumb and unsuccessful the same vote as bright and successful people?” And who decides who belongs to which group. Someone who thinks Fox is fair and balanced, just as an initial thought of descriptors.
leejcaroll wrote: “… who decides who belongs to which group.”
The first step is to realize that the concept of equal suffrage will destroy democratic governments. Then we can do the hard work of determining the details of how to construct a good democratic process. Equal suffrage is a lazy approach to the problem of making democracy fair.
Secondly, we ought to recognize the principle that voting with money is more powerful than a free vote. This is what makes capitalism work so well. People vote for good businesses by buying their products instead of marking a ballot. Try it with your children. Ask them to vote for something for free, then tell them they have to pay for it and see how their vote changes.
leejcaroll wrote: “…Fox news, that’s “fair and balanced” only if your definitions of those words include opposite world.”
Really? Don’t you see the bigotry and prejudice expressed in your stereotype of Fox News?
The right’s war against the poor: Pope Francis, liberal Democrats against House Republicans, Ayn Rand atheist10/31/13
http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/economy-budget/188852-the-rights-war-against-the-poor-pope-francis-liberal
In my column “Food stamp scandals,” I harshly criticized far-right Republicans and House Republicans as a group for waging war against the hungry with their callous attacks against food stamps.
Check out the comments under my column, many of which on both sides were thoughtful, but too many of which sounded like they were from angry white males on the very far right who share an abnormal hatred of poor people.
Pope Francis, who is the pope with a passion for the poor, has spoken as the conscience of the world on the paramount urgency of helping the needy. Virtually all of the great religions share this notion that those who have the most should help those who have the least.
Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and so many others speak with different faiths on the shared purpose of helping the impoverished.
Democrats, liberals, progressives and moderates are fighting to translate these faiths of decency into the realities of policy.
For some unfathomable reason, by contrast, the far right and those Republicans in fear of the far right, who include Republican leaders in the House of Representatives, have declared war against the poor and hungry. The attacks against food stamps from the radical right, and the attempts by House Republicans to cut almost $40 billion from food stamps, and the food stamp cuts that are scheduled to go into effect on Friday represent a new low of callous indifference and cruelty even by standards of the highly unpopular Tea Party movement and Republican leaders in Washington.
I emphasize, and many Republicans and principled conservatives outside Washington share my view, that this war against the poor is despicable. Republican Gov. John Kasich of Ohio has warned Republicans about this war against the poor. Republican Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey has distanced himself from what some of us call the suicide wing of the GOP.
There is a school of thought on the right that is rooted in the cruel atheism and pseudo-libertarianism of Ayn Rand, and one champion of that is Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the chairman of the House Budget Committee.
They wage war against the poor and despise any attempt to help them. They embody the curse of selfishness and greed the plagues the Republican Party today and is a major source of the unpopularity of the Tea Party and the GOP today. Francis is right. Rand is wrong. Liberal Democrats are right. House Republicans are wrong. President Obama is right. The war against the poor must end.
*****
Ohio Governor Defies G.O.P. With Defense of Social Safety Net
10/28/13
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/29/us/politics/ohio-governor-defies-gop-with-defense-of-social-safety-net.html?hp&_r=0
Excerpt:
COLUMBUS, Ohio — In his grand Statehouse office beneath a bust of Lincoln, Gov. John R. Kasich let loose on fellow Republicans in Washington.
“I’m concerned about the fact there seems to be a war on the poor,” he said, sitting at the head of a burnished table as members of his cabinet lingered after a meeting. “That if you’re poor, somehow you’re shiftless and lazy.”
“You know what?” he said. “The very people who complain ought to ask their grandparents if they worked at the W.P.A.”
Ever since Republicans in Congress shut down the federal government in an attempt to remove funding for President Obama’s health care law, Republican governors have been trying to distance themselves from Washington.
Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin schooled lawmakers in a Washington Post opinion column midway through the 16-day shutdown on “What Wisconsin Can Teach Washington.” Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey, with a record of bipartisan support at home, remarked after a visit to the nation’s capital, “If I was in the Senate right now, I’d kill myself.”
But few have gone further than Mr. Kasich in critiquing his party’s views on poverty programs, and last week he circumvented his own Republican legislature and its Tea Party wing by using a little-known state board to expand Medicaid to 275,000 poor Ohioans under President Obama’s health care law.
Once a leader of the conservative firebrands in Congress under Newt Gingrich in the 1990s, Mr. Kasich has surprised and disarmed some former critics on the left with his championing of Ohio’s disadvantaged, which he frames as a matter of Christian compassion.
He embodies conventional Republican fiscal priorities — balancing the budget by cutting aid to local governments and education — but he defies many conservatives in believing government should ensure a strong social safety net. In his three years as governor, he has expanded programs for the mentally ill, fought the nursing home lobby to bring down Medicaid costs and backed Cleveland’s Democratic mayor, Frank Jackson, in raising local taxes to improve schools.
David you are among the minority since it is the repubs want to cut the safety net,not the dems. It is the repubs and right leaning SCOTUS who like and allow Citizens United and want to not tax corporations but tax the middle class.
leejcaroll wrote: “David you are among the minority since it is the repubs want to cut the safety net,not the dems.”
Wrong again. Republicans like me want a safety net. We just don’t want a nanny state. Food stamps already has more people than the entire population of Spain. That is much more than a safety net, which is why it is so abused. Some beneficiaries now even advertise on Craigslist to sell their EBT cards (e.g., $60 for a $100 EBT card) even though it is against Craigslist terms of service to do so.
http://www.naturalnews.com/042674_food_stamp_fraud_sold_for_cash_craigslist.html
I want food stamps to go to people who need it, not to drug addicts looking for fast cash. Democrats seem to want to just throw as much money at the problem without caring about how to pay for it.
leejcaroll wrote: ” Repubs… tax the middle class.”
Wrong again. Remember the Bush tax cuts on the middle class? The middle class even got sent checks in the mail. That’s the direction of Republican policy on taxing the middle class. We want the middle class to pay less taxes. Please stop reading only left wing websites that misrepresent us. Fox News might give you a more balanced understanding of the truth, or at least just look at how Republicans vote and what they say rather than reading what our enemies claim we say.
Forget about Alan.
In Chicago, Lamont Cranston still votes.
And he’s been imaginary since 1937.
Alan Grayson, not Cranston.
nick spinelli 1, November 1, 2013 at 10:41 am
Alan Cranston died a long time ago. However, he still votes in Chicago every election.
===================
Or someone with his name.
Anybody that votes for someone that will pass a law without reading it deserves what they get. The same with someone that has been a proven liar.
“Hitlery” “Warmonger” “Mass Murderer” Clinton should be in prison.
nick spinelli 1, November 1, 2013 at 9:26 am
… We need to blow up those Kool-Aid factories. That’s how we get outta this insane loop.
===========================
Yep.
It will take the help of the government to overthrow the Epigovernment.
So she got paid for speeches. I don’t see the problem other then the continued problem made worse by SCOTUS, and potentially even worse still with McCutcheon. All politicians, both sides, get money from whatever sources they can. Giving a speech is usually a paid situation. I imagine Professor Turley gets paid when he makes speeches.
(And the repubs hands, Nick, are also out, even eating at the public trough, http://ourfuture.org/20130920/the-10-farm-subsidy-recipients-who-voted-to-cut-food-stamps. This is much worse becausethey take taxpayer money that they want to cut from the poor. This is just one batch of example. Samre is true for Medicaid http://gawker.com/tea-party-republican-defends-being-on-medicaid-while-op-1446552792 I’d rather see Clinton, et al getting paid for a speech then repubs saying Let them eat cake to the poor while they continue to chow down on taxpayer dollars)
What Mike S. and OS said. I will add that unless we get money out of politics, the MIC will continue to own our politicians.
Gene H:
yes, it is.