Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiMcCain Attacks Wall Street Greed—While 83 Wall Street Lobbyists Work for His Campaign
In the past few days, as the economic crisis has deepened, Senator John McCain has been decrying the excesses of Wall Street. At a campaign rally in Tampa on Tuesday, he vowed that he and Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, if elected, "are going to put an end to the reckless conduct, corruption, and unbridled greed that have caused a crisis on Wall Street." He noted that the "foundation of our economy...has been put at risk by the greed and mismanagement of Wall Street and Washington."
He blasted CEOs who "seem to escape the consequences." He denounced Wall Streeters who "dreamed up investment schemes that they themselves don't even understand" and who used "derivatives, credit default swaps, and mortgage-backed securities" to try "to make their own rules." He excoriated Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for gaming the system. And he slammed financial industry lobbyists for misguiding members of Congress. "I can promise you the days of dealing and special favors will soon be over in Washington." On Wednesday morning, after the federal government committed $85 billion to prevent the collapse of the American International Group (AIG) insurance conglomerate, McCain again assailed irresponsible corporate executives. "We need to change the way Washington and Wall Street does business," he proclaimed.
McCain has been quick with fiery, populist-tinged speeches. But one thing has been missing: any acknowledgment that McCain's own campaign has been loaded with the type of people he's been denouncing. (The McCain campaign did not respond to a request for comment; we will update the post if they do.) As Mother Jones previously reported, former Senator Phil Gramm, McCain's onetime campaign chairman, used a backroom maneuver in late 2000 to slip into law a bill that kept credit default swaps unregulated. These financial instruments greased the way to the subprime meltdown that has led to today's economic crisis. Several of McCain's most senior campaign aides have lobbied for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. And the Democratic National Committee, using publicly available records, has identified 177 lobbyists working for the McCain campaign as either aides, policy advisers, or fundraisers.
Of those 177 lobbyists, according to a Mother Jones review of Senate and House records, at least 83 have in recent years lobbied for the financial industry McCain now attacks. These are high-paid influence-peddlers who have been working the corridors of the nation's capital to win favors and special treatment for investment banks, securities firms, hedge funds, accounting outfits, and insurance companies. Their clients have included AIG, the newest symbol of corporate excess; Lehman Brothers, which filed for bankruptcy on Monday sending the stock market into a tailspin; Merrill Lynch, which was bought out by Bank of America this week; and Washington Mutual, the banking giant that could be the next to fall. Among these 83 lobbyists are McCain's chief political adviser, Charlie Black (JP Morgan, Washington Mutual Bank, Freddie Mac, Mortgage Bankers Association of America); McCain's national finance co-chairman, Wayne Berman (AIG, Blackstone, Credit Suisse, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac); the campaign's congressional liaison, John Green (Carlyle Group, Citigroup, Icahn Associates, Fannie Mae); McCain's veep vetter, Arthur Culvahouse (Fannie Mae); and McCain's transition planning chief, William Timmons Sr. (Citigroup, Freddie Mac, Vanguard Group).
When cable news shows air footage of McCain railing against greedy execs and the lobbyists who rig the rules for the benefit of Wall Street dealmakers, there ought to be a crawl beneath him listing these lobbyists. (Talk about a fair and balanced presentation.) Short of that, here's the list of the McCain aides and bundlers who have worked for the high-finance greed-mongers McCain has pledged to take on. So far, it seems, none of them have been cast out of the campaign. If McCain were serious about his outrage, he might throw these money-changers out of his own temple.
Phil Anderson: American Council of Life Insurers, Aetna, AIG, New York Life, MassMutual, VISA
Rebecca Anderson: Aegon, American Council of Life Insurers, Cigna, Barclays, Credit Suisse First Boston, HSBC
Stanton Anderson: The Debt Exchange
David Beightol: Allstate, Amerigroup, Charles Schwab, HSBC
Rhonda Bentz: VISA
Wayne Berman: American Council of Life Insurers, AIG, Americhoice, Shinsei Bank, Blackstone, Carlyle Group, Broidy Capital Management, Credit Suisse Securities, Highstar Capital, VISA, Ameriquest Mortgage, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Fitch Ratings
Charlie Black: JP Morgan, Washington Mutual Bank, Freddie Mac, Mortgage Bankers Association of America, National Association of Mortgage Brokers
Judy Black: Colorado Credit Union League, Genworth Financial, Bay Harbour Management, Merrill Lynch
Kirk Blalock: Credit Union National Association, Financial Executives International, American Insurance Association, Mutual of Omaha, Zurich Financial Service Group, Fannie Mae, Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco
Carlos Bonilla: Financial Services Roundtable, Freddie Mac
Christine Burgeson: Citigroup
Mark Buse: Freddie Mac, Goldman Sachs, Manufacturers Life Insurance Company
Nicholas Calio: Citigroup, Managed Fund Association, Fannie Mae, Merrill Lynch, The Investment Company Institute, TIAA-CRE, Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association
Ben Nighthorse Campbell: Amscot Financial Corporation, Community Financial Services Association, Fidelity National Financial
Andrew Cantor: American Insurance Association, Merrill Lynch
Alberto Cardenas: Fannie Mae
James Courter: Goldman Sachs, Donaldson Lufkin & Jenrette, Investment Company Institute, Merrill Lynch
David Crane: Financial Services Roundtable, PriceWaterhouseCoopers, Deloitte & Touche, KPMG, Ernst & Young, Bank of America, Association of Corporate Credit Unions, Freddie Mac
Dan Crippen: Merrill Lynch, National Multi-Housing Council
Arthur Culvahouse: Fannie Mae
Bryan Cunningham: Arch Capital Group
Alfonse D'Amato: AIG, Freddie Mac
Doug Davenport: Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco, Goldman Sachs, VISA
Ashley Davis: Prudential Financial, American Financial Group, American Premier Underwriters, Great American Insurance Company
Mimi Dawson: MassMutual
Melissa Edwards: Freddie Mac, National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts, Access to Capital Coalition
Chris Fidler: American Bankers Association, Milcom Venture Partners, National Association Real Estate Investment Trusts
Samuel Geduldig: American Bankers Association, American Institute of CPAs, America Gains, Berkshire Hathaway, Consumer Bankers Association, Ernst & Young, Financial Services Roundtable, Investment Company Institute, PriceWaterhouseCoopers, Prudential Financial, Sovereign Investment Council, Fidelity Investments, FMR Corp.
Benjamin Ginsberg: Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance, AIG Technical Services
David Girard-Dicarlo: American Financial Group, American Premier Underwriters
Juleanna Glover Weiss: RJI Capital, American Institute of CPAs, BNP Paribas, Ernst & Young, PriceWaterhouseCoopers
Slade Gorton: Allstate Insurance, Hannan Armstrong Capital
Phil Gramm: UBS Americas
John Green: Laredo National Bank, Alternative Investment Management Association, AIG, Blackstone Group, Carlyle Group, Citigroup, Credit Suisse Group, Fannie Mae, Icahn Associates, FMR Corp., AFLAC, VISA
Janet Grissom: American Institute of CPAs, NYSE, Merrill Lynch
Kristen Gullott: San Diego Credit Union
Kent Hance: Stanford Financial Group, Municipal Capital Markets Group, Inc.
Vicki Hart: American Financial Services Association, Citigroup, Investment Company Institute, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, New York Stock Exchange, VISA, Carlyle Group, Credit Suisse, Federal Home Loan Bank of Indianapolis, Goldman Sachs, National Association of Government Guaranteed Lenders, Stanford Group, Lloyd's of London, National City Corp.
Richard Hohlt: Capmark Financial Group, Fannie Mae, JP Morgan Chase and Co., Student Loan Marketing Association, Washington Mutual, Guaranty Bank & Trust, Peachtree Settlement Funding, Dime Savings Bank of New York
Gaylord Hughey: Heartland Security Insurance Group
Kate Hull: Credit Union National Association, Fannie Mae, Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco, Zurich Financial Services, American Insurance Association, Financial Executives International
James Hyland: American Insurance Association, Seattle Home Loan Bank, Self Help Credit Union, National Association of Bankruptcy Trustees, Merrill Lynch, Mortgage Investors Corp., Federal Home Loan Bank of Indianapolis, Freddie Mac, New York Stock Exchange, Citigroup, VISA
Aleix Jarvis: Credit Union National Association, Fannie Mae, Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco, Financial Executives International, Mutual of Omaha, American Insurance Association, Zurich Financial Services
Greg Jenner: American Council of Life Insurers, JG Wentworth, UBS, VISA, PriceWaterhouseCoopers
Frank Keating: American Council of Life Insurers
Steven Kuykendall: California Bankers Association
William Lesher: Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Commerce Ventures, Rabobank International
Thomas Loeffler: Citigroup, Fannie Mae, Investment Company Institute, World Savings and Loan Association, United Services Automobile Association (USAA)
Kelly Lugar: RJI Capital Strategies
Peter Madigan: Arthur Andersen, Bank of New York, Broadridge Securities Processing, Charles Schwab, Deloitte and Touche, Goldman Sachs, International Employee Stock Option Coalition, Mastercard, NYSE, Fannie Mae, Merrill Lynch, PNC Bank
Mary Mann: MassMutual
Paul Martino: Morgan Stanley, Baker Tilly
Jana McKeag: Venture Catalyst
Alison McSlarrow: Fannie Mae, Hartford
Mike Meece: Georgetown Partners
David Metzner: Ernst & Young, Harbinger Capital Investments, Prudential, Public Financial Management, Western Union
Susan Molinari: Freddie Mac, American Land Title Association, Association of Consumer Credit Unions, Beacon Capital Partners, College Loan Corp, Coventry First, E-Trade, Financial Services Roundtable, Rent-A-Center
John Moran: Cerberus Capital Management, American Council of Life Insurers, Accenture
John Napier: Freddie Mac
Susan Nelson: AIG, San Antonio Credit Union
Paul Otellini: Ernst & Young, Financial Services Forum
Steve Perry: Charles Schwab, Hoover Partners, HSBC, National Stock Exchange
Nancy Pfotenhauer: American Land Title Association, Mortgage Bankers Association
Elise Pickering-Finley: Credit Suisse, DE Shaw, Hartford Financial Services, Research In Motion, Retail Industry Lenders Association, URL Mutual
James Pitts: Advanced Association for Life Underwriting, AETNA, American Council of Life Insurers, AIG, Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers, Debt Advisory International, Financial Services Coordinating Council, GE Financial Assurance, Hartford Life, Jefferson Pilot Financial, Kenwood Investments, MassMutual, Mutual of Omaha, New York Life, UNUM Provident, VISA, PMI Group
Tim Powers: AP Capital, Genworth Financial, Retail Industry Lenders Association, E-LOAN, General Electric Mortgage Insurance
Walter Price: Wachovia
Sloan Rappoport: Friedman, Billings, Ramsey Group, Inc. (FBR), Trafelet Delta Funds
Hans Rickhoff: Capital One, Investment Company Institute, United Services Automobile Association (USAA)
Kathleen Shanahan: New York Stock Exchange
Andrew Shore: Accenture, Retail Industry Lenders Association, Barclays, Bond Market Association, Credit Suisse, TPG Capital
Katie Stahl: Alliance for Investment Transparency, Ares Management, Fairfax Financial Holdings, Uhlmann Financial Group
Milly Stanges: TIAA-CREF
Aquiles Suarez: Fannie Mae
Don Sundquist: Freddie Mac, The Hartford
Peter Terpeluk: JP Morgan Chase, Ernst & Young, Prudential
Fred Thompson: Equitas
Jeri Thompson: American Insurance Association
John Timmons: National Association of Federal Credit Unions
William Timmons Sr.: American Council of Life Insurers, Citigroup, Dun & Bradstreet, Freddie Mac, Vanguard Group
Vin Weber: Agstar Financial Services, AKT Investment Corp., American Institute of CPAs, Ernst & Young, Freddie Mac, Louis Dreyfus Corp, PriceWaterhouseCoopers
Jeffery Weiss: JP Morgan
Tony Williams: Russell Investment Group, American Life Inc., Northwestern Mutual
32 Comments so far
Show AllNebraska Nathan wrote,
"I would hate to see (Chavez) use those weapons against the US as a pre-emption strike the same way the US invaded Iraq but I wouldn't be surprised to see him do it. He must be sick and tired of Washington already."
Looks like somebody got confused while smoking crack and watching "Red Dawn". Nathan, put the pipe down! That movie is about a Russian invasion.
When he says they are greedy, he means that they are charging him too much.
"The only means of strengthening one's intellect is to make up one's mind about nothing, to let the mind be a thoroughfare for all thoughts." - John Keats
The Republicans are "the party that wrecked America". James Howard Kunstler
You can put lipstick on that, but they are still pigs.
The American Dream is failing because the American Dream has become the world's nightmare.
If the world has to deal with John “Dubya II” McCain and his sidekick, Sarah “my god can kick your god’s ass” Palin, we can expect more of the same mindless light on brains, heavy on bombs, forget the economy. Sadly, I don't expect much better from the Democrats.
http://blogoffanddie.wordpress.com
Vote McCain/Palin and build a bomb shelter. Better yet, vote Nader/Gonzales
blogoffanddie you are right the dems had there chance in 2004 and completely showed that they are not much better than the GOP. A lot of well meaning people do not seem to realize that because the GOP is 95% corrupt and the dems are about 75% corrupt that they should vote for the lesser of two evils. Better to vote your conscience; vote third party.
.
Nader/Gonzales is looking better and BETTER...
For more information on the Nader/Gonzalez campaign, visit: votenader.org.
Support by giving DONATIONS to make this happen ...
VOTE NADER 2008 !!!!!
.
He had better get some Greens and Indies in the House and Senate or else his presidency will be rendered irrelevant. Good luck.
Besides, Nader should have helped repair and strengthen the Green party for 8 years instead of trying to run another unsuccessful one man show. I like the guy and his ideas are great and seriously needed but even if he were to win, he has no chance of passing his excellent agenda through the House or the Senate unless he wanted to try Executive Orders and risk his career or even his life. And what if the two parties team up and impatiently impeach and remove him from office on false charges that the media will no doubt prop up against him? All said, you're better off getting the Greens and Indies into local and state offices followed by federal ones. From there a Nader-like presidency can be made possible and maybe even a secured victory can hold.
Every time I read the Democrat apologists on here my heart sinks. I wish americans would wake up and really get it: both corporate controlled parties have to go. I am a reformed former Democrat. It was a knee-jerk reaction that I had learned from my family. Letting go of the Democratic party was liberating and so worthwhile. I stopped caring about "winning" and understood that we win nothing when we cave in and capitulate to the corporate ruling class.
Excellent post! You are so right.
I hate to repeat this but here goes.
He had better get some Greens and Indies in the House and Senate or else his presidency will be rendered irrelevant. Good luck.
Besides, Nader should have helped repair and strengthen the Green party for 8 years instead of trying to run another unsuccessful one man show. I like the guy and his ideas are great and seriously needed but even if he were to win, he has no chance of passing his excellent agenda through the House or the Senate unless he wanted to try Executive Orders and risk his career or even his life. And what if the two parties team up and impatiently impeach and remove him from office on false charges that the media will no doubt prop up against him? All said, you're better off getting the Greens and Indies into local and state offices followed by federal ones. From there a Nader-like presidency can be made possible and maybe even a secured victory can hold.
Chavez must be laughing, and Castro profoundly amused... so much for the tribute to U.S. capitalism, capital of Greed... as the bloated giants who made sure everyday citizens who were 5 days late on their credit card bills could be LEGALLY obliged to pay usurous interest rates, with late fees attached! It always astounded me that banks could pay 3% interest while using OUR $ to charge 20% and more on the credit card customers. Sometimes mortgages cost a bundle, too... and you figure with THOSE odds, how DARE they lose money! But enough is never enough to those who worship mammon and the golden calf, and so they tried to steal every drop until nothing viable was left... then to continue making profit out of thin air, they had to devise "irregular mortgage instruments" which effectively were the equivalent of selling NOTHING many times, as in Zero multiplied by any number, still being ZERO. But that's not how the "math" was read... read Catherine Fitts on this at www.solari.com
It's truly amazing that the same people who hate Chavez are actually empowering him financially with their fuel inefficient gas guzzlers. At this rate, he can easily afford to purchase weapons from China and Russia that were given to them by the US. I would hate to see him use those weapons against the US as a pre-emption strike the same way the US invaded Iraq but I wouldn't be surprised to see him do it. He must be sick and tired of Washington already.
Anyone remember those pyramid schemes that were the rage for a few months before being declared illegal? 8 people would pool money, and it would create a sum, either of $800 or $8000 and the "winner" would go to the top and claim it. I met peoople who were really into this, and when I'd point out that the one getting the $800 was effectively taking it from 8 persons, and sooner or later there would be no one suckered in... so the last ones left standing would lose their money, I was told it would not end.
I suspect this type of thinking on the part of those who hedged bets against sometimes worthless debt and believed the pot would never empty. To those, lost in a drunken stupor associated with easy wealth without pain or true work earning it, I say they are guilty of the lesser sin. To the ones who went into this thing, orchestrating a known "pinata" that would have to burst, knowing the first would make off with the goodies and leave the carcass and clean up to the more gullible (and perhaps needy), their karma will catch up with them.
Would I like to see a return to sane regulation, a balance between profit/risk and responsibilities, OF COURSE... let's see if any of the pre-selected candidates can now be motivated to do THE RIGHT THING given all that's coming apart. I thought the big shots would hold it altogether, fingers in a dam, so the election could pass and this level of blood-driven trauma would not be delivered onto the body politic. Either it IS a call to change administrations, give Brand America a kinder, gentler face/symbol, OR this is the last chance to get the fiscal pardons from Bush, the lone decider.
I remember the pyramid schemes very well. I was in one going for $16,000. I knew several people who'd made it to the top and collected. I'll never forget one night there had to have been a hundred people at the gathering, and the pyramid was splitting every few minutes. And while it was going on, police helicopters were circling the buildings in the area we were in, looking for us. All I could think of at the time was a possible holdup. There was certainly a bundle of money there. At another gathering I made it to one step from the top, but had lost the thrill of the game, as well not liking the idea of ending up in jail. So I gave my numbers to two elderly women, wished them luck, and left.
"This is genuine coin of the realm. A dollar of this will buy you ten dollars of talk. And there are more of us to be taken care of now."
That's Sidney Greenstreet talking to Humphrey Bogart in "The Maltese Falcon". It could be Obama or McCain talking to the Wall Street crowd or any other group of "bloated fatheads" who grease the thoroughly and hopelessly corrupt machine of American politics.
P.S. read Kevin Phillips book "Bad Money".
.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638
OBAMA TOP CONTRIBUTORS
” You gotta dance with the one who brung ya ”
Read this also...
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2008/07/hbc-90003343
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/05/america/bundlers.php
.
These corporate donors only amount to 4% of his total donations. That means he'll "dance" with the 2.5 million individual people who gave him 96% of his money.
I think that's an incorrect interpretation. I'm sure you got that 4% number from this page, right? Down where it says "other" under Sources of funds?
Open Secrets (OS) has a disclaimer that specifically says:
"These tables list the top donors to these candidates in the 2008 election cycle. The organizations themselves did not donate , rather the money came from the organization's PAC, its individual members or employees or owners, and those individuals' immediate families..."
- That means, I believe, that OS lumps all donations from individuals into their "individual" category, regardless of whether the individual is an executive at Goldman Sachs, or flips burgers at McDonalds. So basically ALL candidates come out looking as though most of their donations come from "individuals." There's no way to tell which individuals are "corporate" and which aren't. OS doesn't even have a separate "corporate" category -- the corporate donations are counted as "individuals." // It's not clear what the OS category "other" means, but it certainly doesn't mean "corporate," as you've assumed in your post.
According to OS, Obama gets 96% of his money from "individuals," while McCain gets 81%. Nader, by comparison, gets 65% from individuals, and 33% from "other." It's unclear what useful conclusions can be drawn from this. Surely you wouldn't interpret it to mean that Nader gets 33% of his money from corporate sources, would you?
Any interpretation claiming that Obama gets 96% of his money from "jes' ordinary folks," and only a few piddling percent from wealthy corporate elites, is clearly in error. Obama is not just a "little bit" corporate, as a candidate. He is exceptionally subservient to corporations. He hasn't articulated a single position that would discomfit corporate America, which is why they happily put up tens of millions of dollars for his Denver convention.
Let's be honest: BOTH candidates are fully-vetted corporate candidates, with records that prove their reliability. That's the way it works in America. Any attempt to paint Obama as being pure & untainted by corporate money is false, silly & untenable.
Thank you RichM.
I have a hard time expressing myself.
Nannie...
People will be willing to throw money at you if you run for president for a major party. Creating a policy based purely on your donors whims is another thing all together.
Let's give the democrats a chance.
And let us please keep Nader far away from this fracas. Until Nader reaches a critical mass, I would not consider voting for him.
Love
Zero
ZeroPointField September 17th, 2008 3:17 pm
"Let's give the democrats a chance."
We, myself included, gave the Democrats a chance in 2006 and we all know how that turned out.
Lobo Gris
Most Americans, not all, are as dumb as a box of rocks. They consistently vote against their best interests. Clearly, a vote for ANY Republican is a vote against the interests of average American citizens. Who let the foxes into the chickenhouse called Wall St?? Who was in charge of the SEC, OTS, OMB, Treasury Dept, Fed Reserve, Comptroller of the Currency when the mortgage backed secutities disaster really got up a head of steam back in the 2001-2003 timeframe???
Answer: Republicans. Republicans can run, but they can not hide.
A fairly worthless article, since it implies by omission that the Democrats are better in this respect, which they're not.
Yes, yes, I know that the usual idiot Dem apologists will screech like banshees in protest. However, for those with a desire to face the truth, let's acknowledge that we're in the crisis we're in, precisely because the US only allows 2 big political parties to exist, & both of them are controlled by Wall St & the MIC. We're not going to get anywhere by trying to worm around this basic truth. All arguments to the effect that "The Dems are not as bad" are attempts to avoid facing this truth.
Here's a Bloomberg article from Aug 15 that says Obama is getting more loot from Wall St than McCain. It says, for example, that "Democrat Barack Obama has captured $9.6 million in donations from employees working for securities, mortgage and drug companies, compared with McCain's $6.6 million." This is from only 3 big corporate sectors -- you'd have to extrapolate it to get some sense of Obama's support from corporate America.
"All arguments to the effect that "The Dems are not as bad" are attempts to avoid facing this truth."
I respectfully disagree, Rich. Both parties ARE controlled by, or at the very least attempt to please, big money and the MIC. Both parties ARE bad. However, the Dems are not AS bad. Denying this is the real effort to avoid the truth.
The question is how do we change things. I believe applying more muscle to the rudder will begin to steer this heavy ship of state leftward, however slightly. If you can show me how any votes for a third party at any time in the recent past have improved the human condition in this country I'd be willing to listen. Until then, I have to think it's the equivalent of whizzing into a hurricane. Focus, man - first we get rid of the Republicans, then the Democrats.
The dems not as corrupt as the Great Oil Party? Please,give me a break. All you have to do is look at the last four years. The lesser of two evils is still evil.
Okay wcdevins in 1892 the Populist Party adopted the Omaha platform calling for such things as a secret ballot, 8 hour work day, and the direct election of Senators.
The Populists never won the presidency but their efforts were eventually adopted by the Democratic Party after they no doubt noticed that Populists were getting more and more votes in general elections.
In 1912 Eugene V. Debs, running as a socialist, got about 6%. Sociaslists were proposing things like, social security, a 40 hour work week, and greater government regulation over business. By 1932 FDR and the rest of the country was ready for significant parts of this platform.
It's the same for the greens or other independent candidates like Nader today. You may not see the fruit of their efforts for a while but the planting of the seeds must precede the growth of any new ideas.
Poet
Nader could reform the Democratic Party or even build a third party of progressives and liberals by running the sellouts out through primaries and general elections on all levels and replace them with progressive populists. That would be a far better idea than focusing on the presidency alone which he has no chance of winning and would be rendered irrelevant by both parties on Capital Hill.
Thanks to you as well, Poet. See my reply to RichM above.
The sense in which Dems are "not as bad" is superficial. When you say that, you only mean that they don't snarl on TV as much as Republicans, & that their language is less overtly bloodthirsty.
But at a deeper level, the Dems function to protect Republicans from accountability (ie, Pelosi taking impeachment off the table, within days of the '06 election). They function to help pass the Republican agenda, & very conspicuously avoid ever making issues of Republican-initiated crimes. (For instance, Kerry could have used the Abu Ghraib scandals, or the nonexistence of WMD, as campaign issues in 2004. But he didn't. This is entirely typical.)
You write, "If you can show me how any votes for a third party at any time in the recent past have improved the human condition in this country I'd be willing to listen..."
- That's the wrong question, because there has been nothing but a steady move to the right for several decades, now. If I said to you, "Show me how any votes for Democrats in the recent past have improved the human condition in this country," how would you answer? The Democrats haven't had a meaningful positive achievement since Medicare (1965). (And that was while they were escalating Vietnam.)
The New Deal was able to make social improvements only because there was serious pressure from a militant Left. The FDR Democrats had to defuse a serious challenge from the labor movement, & to deflect possible challenges from populists like Huey Long. In other words, only because there was widespread anger, & people showed they were determined to bolt leftwards & abandon the 2-party system, were the Democrats pushed towards making serious concessions. Without that pressure from a serious Left, there would have been no serious concessions. THAT is an example of how a militant willingness to leave the 2-party system has improved the human condition in this country. It's not a "recent" example, because the population has been too docile since the 1930's, to mount a serious challenge the 2-party system. As the docility & obedience of the population has increased, the tyrannical rottenness of governance has likewise increased.
Good points. I think I could name some positive Dem achievements but there's no need to get into a fruitless pissing contest over the past when the future is so bleak. I am not a DNC apologist, but I just don't see that the critical mass of militant left you speak of as having affected FDR has been reached today. I realize it has to start somewhere, I'm just not ready to commit too soon.
We both see the inexorable, and to me unexplainable, rightward shift of the country. I think had Humphrey won or Reagan lost America would have moved further leftward, as basic Dem social policies would have been the norm, and when Repubs talked about cutting taxes they would have meant cutting services and benefits the American public had gotten used to. Alas, that pipe dream is only a Sci-Fi possible alternative past, not today's reality. And today's reality requires a much larger section of the population to start thinking, start seeing what's happening to their future, start realizing that unions and the ACLU are not their enemies, and start moving leftward following our small vanguard. Until then, I think a militant willingness to abandon the 2-party system is premature and doomed to fail.
Perhaps you are just braver than I. Back on topic, if this financial crises snowballs much further, you may look like a prophet. Someone else said yesterday you had to be a millionaire or a moron to vote Republican; today you have to be a moron.
Thank you.
Lets see...Obama has Fanny and Freddies CEO's as financial advisors? There is no difference here.
he headline says it all--so which do you believe?--McSame's words or his actions? Now how many Wall Street lobbyists and finnacial fixers does Obama have on his staff--hmmmm?
Hint--Robert Rubin, current CEO of Citigroup and formerly of Goldman-Sachs, and the Treasurery Secretary under Bill Clinton who helped steer the revocation of Glass-
Steagal through the Congress and Senate is Barack's chief economic advisor. But I guess David Korn and Katrina VandenHeuval at the Nation have the kind of selective amnesia that strikes most journalists these days.
Poet