Simpler Political Times

I'm conservative.  I'm probably what you would call religious.  I've never heard of this group.  I do know a little about LaHaye.  I don't want him influencing policy.

Rich

I am glad to be the second to comment.  I also looked up diatribe since that might have been a harsh word and looking up definitions seems to be the rage in the MCS blogosphere.

Diatribe: A prolonged discourse, bitter and abusive speech and writing, ironic or satirical criticism. 

Ok - it fits 2 at least.

Now, regarding your other question on the Dem fraternity.  I did a very quick search and came up the info below.  You seem to be very adept at finding all kinds of info on W and his cronies, take some time and do some additional research on the Dems (in the interest of FAB) and I am sure you can come up with more than what I found.  You will notice I rarely if ever have defended W to the end, what I have done in nearly all cases is try to point out that in your endless criticisms of W and the right, you never seem to look to the left. 

Take a look and let us know what you think, and if you think this is Simpler Political Times, your original blog title?

From here down I have C/P, but not the whole articles, and included the http addresses as well so you can look further if desired.  The first article from 2004 broke open the secret society, fast forward three years to the second article from 2007.  If nothing else, pay particular attention to the final two paragraphs.

P.S. These are facts, not opinions.

****************************************************

The Money Man

Can George Soros’s millions insure the defeat of President Bush

October 18, 2004

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/10/18/041018fa_fact3

 On August 6th, a week after the Democratic Convention, a clandestine summit meeting took place at the Aspen Institute, in Colorado’s Rocky Mountains. The participants, all Democrats, were sworn to secrecy, and few of them will discuss the event. One thing that is certain, however, is that the guests formed a tableau that not many people would associate with the Democratic Party of the past. Five billionaires joined half a dozen liberal leaders in a lengthy conversation about the future of progressive politics in America. The billionaires were not especially close socially, nor were they in complete agreement about politics or strategy. Yet they shared a common goal: to use their fortunes to engineer the defeat of President George W. Bush in the 2004 election. “No one was supposed to know about this,” an assistant to one participant told me, declining to be named. “We don’t want people thinking it’s a cabal, or some sort of Masonic plot!” His concern was understandable: the prospect of rich men concentrating their wealth in order to sway an American election was an inflammatory one, particularly given the Democratic Party’s populist rhetoric. This private meeting of plutocrats was an unintended consequence of the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance-reform law of 2002. Previously, wealthy donors had contributed “soft money” to the political parties, which controlled how the funds were spent. The reform legislation had banned such gifts, forcing donors to find new ways of influencing the political process Fined Group Tied to HillaryJim McElhattonSeptember 27, 2007 http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070927/NATION/109270078/1001Officials of a defunct pro-Democratic group that was hit with a near-record campaign-finance fine last month hold strong ties to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign, documents show. At least four persons who worked for the America Coming Together (ACT) fundraising group, which the Federal Election Commission recently fined $775,000, work directly for the Clinton campaign or hold top positions with consulting firms hired by it. In addition, the group's former president, longtime Clinton aide Harold Ickes, has been identified as a volunteer adviser to the Clinton campaign. In FEC filings, the campaign listed a debt to Mr. Ickes of more than $2,000 for travel-related costs. Funded with millions of dollars from billionaire George Soros, America Coming Together (ACT) misused about $70 million in "soft money," uncapped donations that aren't supposed to be used to urge election or defeat of a candidate, the FEC determined, saying that some of the money was spent on direct-mail and telemarketing efforts aimed against President Bush and Republicans in key battleground states in 2004. Laurence Gold, ACT's attorney, said the FEC's fine marked "the conclusion of three years of politically motivated charges by the Republican Party and ill-conceived allegations by self-styled campaign 'reform' groups." It"s not clear how much control the former ACT officials have had in the day-to-day fundraising activities of the Clinton campaign, which found itself the focal point of controversy surrounding jailed fundraiser Norman Hsu in recent weeks. The Clinton campaign did not return phone or e-mail messages this week.  SUMMED UP:What this story demonstrates is that there is little to no consequence for Democrats who violate the campaign laws. Whether it is vote fraud or or illegal campaigning they just MoveOn to another organization and keep on campaigning. The defunct organization pays a fine, but the perps just move to another entity. Governor Huckabee summed up the Dem war machine’s ties to this group and their despicable ad defacing General Petraus (and the Dem’s avoidance at all costs of denouncing the ad): "If you can't get your lips off the backside of George Soros long enough to use those lips to say it's wrong to declare a sitting general . . . guilty of treason," the 2008 Republican presidential hopeful said, "how would you ever expect to have the support of the very military you might have to send into deadly battle?" 

Sorry about the earlier cut and paste, it kind of all pasted together.  Tried to open it up for easier reading. 

*********************************************** 

Can George Soros’s millions insure the defeat of President Bush

October 18, 2004

http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/10/18/041018fa_fact3

 On August 6th, a week after the Democratic Convention, a clandestine summit meeting took place at the Aspen Institute, in Colorado’s Rocky Mountains. The participants, all Democrats, were sworn to secrecy, and few of them will discuss the event. One thing that is certain, however, is that the guests formed a tableau that not many people would associate with the Democratic Party of the past. Five billionaires joined half a dozen liberal leaders in a lengthy conversation about the future of progressive politics in America. The billionaires were not especially close socially, nor were they in complete agreement about politics or strategy. Yet they shared a common goal: to use their fortunes to engineer the defeat of President George W. Bush in the 2004 election. “No one was supposed to know about this,” an assistant to one participant told me, declining to be named. “We don’t want people thinking it’s a cabal, or some sort of Masonic plot!” His concern was understandable: the prospect of rich men concentrating their wealth in order to sway an American election was an inflammatory one, particularly given the Democratic Party’s populist rhetoric. This private meeting of plutocrats was an unintended consequence of the McCain-Feingold campaign-finance-reform law of 2002. Previously, wealthy donors had contributed “soft money” to the political parties, which controlled how the funds were spent. The reform legislation had banned such gifts, forcing donors to find new ways of influencing the political process 

Fined Group Tied to HillaryJim McElhattonSeptember 27, 2007 http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070927/NATION/109270078/1001

Officials of a defunct pro-Democratic group that was hit with a near-record campaign-finance fine last month hold strong ties to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's presidential campaign, documents show. At least four persons who worked for the America Coming Together (ACT) fundraising group, which the Federal Election Commission recently fined $775,000, work directly for the Clinton campaign or hold top positions with consulting firms hired by it. In addition, the group's former president, longtime Clinton aide Harold Ickes, has been identified as a volunteer adviser to the Clinton campaign. In FEC filings, the campaign listed a debt to Mr. Ickes of more than $2,000 for travel-related costs. Funded with millions of dollars from billionaire George Soros, America Coming Together (ACT) misused about $70 million in "soft money," uncapped donations that aren't supposed to be used to urge election or defeat of a candidate, the FEC determined, saying that some of the money was spent on direct-mail and telemarketing efforts aimed against President Bush and Republicans in key battleground states in 2004. Laurence Gold, ACT's attorney, said the FEC's fine marked "the conclusion of three years of politically motivated charges by the Republican Party and ill-conceived allegations by self-styled campaign 'reform' groups." It"s not clear how much control the former ACT officials have had in the day-to-day fundraising activities of the Clinton campaign, which found itself the focal point of controversy surrounding jailed fundraiser Norman Hsu in recent weeks. The Clinton campaign did not return phone or e-mail messages this week.  

SUMMED UP:

What this story demonstrates is that there is little to no consequence for Democrats who violate the campaign laws. Whether it is vote fraud or or illegal campaigning they just MoveOn to another organization and keep on campaigning. The defunct organization pays a fine, but the perps just move to another entity. 

Governor Huckabee summed up the Dem war machine’s ties to this group and their despicable ad defacing General Petraus (and the Dem’s avoidance at all costs of denouncing the ad): "If you can't get your lips off the backside of George Soros long enough to use those lips to say it's wrong to declare a sitting general . . . guilty of treason," the 2008 Republican presidential hopeful said, "how would you ever expect to have the support of the very military you might have to send into deadly battle?" 

CCC,

Thanks for the info.  But if you are still trying to convince me, or anybody else that Dems = BAD & GOP = GOOD, that barking dog is dead.  He's just stinking up the place.  I think that both you & I & pretty much every one else out there knows that both parties are not exactly shining examples of integrity.  What it comes down to is we have two different dogs crapping in the front yard.  What's the difference?  Nothing.  They are both bad dogs.  Whether or not you have one dog, Soros, or you have a bunch of dogs, the Christian right, you've still got the crap of another dog in your yard.  So whether you have Soros or the Christian right block, you've still got gobs of money going to a political campaign.  That is hardly news.  What has been in the news, on a rather consistent basis, is the fact that people have been surprised at how the Dems have been gathering more money than the GOP.  Why?  Because it is different & that makes it news.  The Christian right finally realised their mistake with Bush & have vowed to change their ways.  Check out the web sites, especially the Associated Batist Press.  They finally figured out that W whored himself out to them for nothing but their money & votes.  Then he ignored them & worse.

But the re-hashing gets us nowhere.  Personally, I think the Dems are still working at a disadvantage.  They don't have a right wing, conservative , activist Supreme Ct. justice in their back pocket to help swing an election their way.  I guess they'll just have to try to win the honest way, if that is a possibility these days.  Not that it will be the best for the country.  As I said before, I don't work on faith & have very little trust.  JATFUR.

RichK  

RK -

To continue on your dog crapping in the yard analogy.  I guess what gets me every now and then is your tone and words (as do other liberals) seem to imply that the left's dog crap does not stink.  In the last 5 to 6 years or so, with ammunition or not, the left has come to focus on one thing and one thing only - to bring down one meager man, to prove to the world that he is dumber than a brick. 

I've never tried to convince you that Dems = bad or whatever... only that those who spend som much time with their head turned one way, miss what is happening the other way. 

My father once said if you spend too much time looking behind you, you can't plan for what is in front of you. 

The left spends so much time and money (70 million in 'soft' money!) writing diatribes and dissecting every single misstep or perceived misstep of one simple man, trying to bring him down - that of course nothing good has happened in years.  When the left took control of the Senate, boy - look out, good things were going to happen.  The senate approval ratings are at an all time low and nothing has happned except for some failed attempts to discredit the administration - where do you see those low approvals flashed across the papers and networks? 

If you also notice in my reply, I do not support W to the end.  He has made mistakes, but so has every President and so will the next.  But for all the ranting and raving about AM radio and Limbaugh/Hannity, I challenge you to find when they have absolutely crucified a sitting Dem president with the absolute hatred and vitriolic disrespect spewed out by the Dem elite of Kennedy, Pelosi, et. al...along with their hollywood elite who somehow stayed at a HI Express and became an expert on foreign affairs.  I super challenge you to find an elected Republican who has called a sitting Dem president and/or his adminnistration liars and murderers. I know, you will say, well if given the ammunition..... well - take a hard look at past Dem presidents, and the ammunition was there. 

I really was trying to keep this short, but just can't pass on your Supreme court comment.  That is another thorn in the side of the left, that Bush won the election.   The dumb kid from Texas beat the elite blue blood.  I heard somebody say the other day that Florida gave away the game to LSU (LSU won by the way - geaux tigers).  Florida did not give the game away, LSU won it.  If you are a gator get over it.  The SC did not give Bush the election, he won it, if you are a Dem, get over it.  Or go to law school and become a SC justice.

Take your cue from the current holy grail of the dems, moveon.org, move on, look ahead, and quit spewing all kinds of hatred at somebody who can't even run again!  Stand in one place, spin around and look at all sides, you might be suprised what you see.