Harry Reid attacks private Americans on Senate floor

[RIROCKHOUND]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I don't care if the Koch brothers are by far the biggest donors. If they are obeying the law, then their political ideology is not the concern of the United States Senate.

Maybe the law, and the amount of influence lobbyists have, is the problem....

[Fishpart]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Maybe the law, and the amount of influence lobbyists have, is the problem....

Brian, I agree. If we could get the money out of politics, the PEOPLE would be far better off.

[Nebe]

bingo...

the more money you give, the more favors you receive...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Maybe the law, and the amount of influence lobbyists have, is the problem....

Fine. I actually agree with that. But that's not what Reid said...Reid didn't call for campaign finance reform. Reid specified the Koch Brothers. Why? Why isn't Reid concerned about the influence being bought by George Soros or the teachers unions?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

If they are obeying the law, then their political ideology is not the concern of the United States Senate.

This really is the problem. At their level you're very influential as to what laws you're required to obey.

Fund think tanks, think tanks write papers, papers become drafts of legislation, lobbyists push for passage of legislation, 527's shape public opinion, legislators respond to pressure...

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

This really is the problem. At their level you're very influential as to what laws you're required to obey.

Fund think tanks, think tanks write papers, papers become drafts of legislation, lobbyists push for passage of legislation, 527's shape public opinion, legislators respond to pressure...

-spence

Here's what you keep ignoring. Reid didn't say "we need to limit influence peddling at the highest levels". If he said that, I'd agree with him.

He mentioned the Kochs, and only them, by name. Do they give more money than all of the labor unions put together? No. So why single them out?

During the 2008 primaries, every single Democratic candidate came to speak to Media Matters - clearly a powerful force on the liberal side. How come Reid isn't mentioning their CEO by name?

[Fishpart]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Here's what you keep ignoring. Reid didn't say "we need to limit influence peddling at the highest levels". If he said that, I'd agree with him.

He mentioned the Kochs, and only them, by name. Do they give more money than all of the labor unions put together? No. So why single them out?

During the 2008 primaries, every single Democratic candidate came to speak to Media Matters - clearly a powerful force on the liberal side. How come Reid isn't mentioning their CEO by name?

Liberals believe the only one entitled to an opinion is a Liberal.

[PaulS]

http://www.thenation.com/blog/178743...ions-combined#
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by PaulS

http://www.thenation.com/blog/178743...ions-combined#
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Exactly what I was saying so it can't be true…

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Exactly what I was saying so it can't be true…

-spence

The last line in that piece speculates that Koch contributions "may have been unreported".

Once again spence, why isn't Reid At all concerned with anyone other than the Koch brothers?

If Reid doesn't like it, he can either change the law, or ask the Hollywood swells who support dems, to do the same thing. Until then he sounds like a brat throwing a fit, and you sound like an apologist.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Exactly what I was saying so it can't be true…

-spence

There is that . . . . . . and that it is a cut and paste from a liberal rag. That should be enough for a yawn.

Seriously (which is to say I was only joking in a serious way about the above stuff), you touched on what is really at play here when you said that the objective of the Koch brothers Is to eliminate progressivism. In which case I would support them wholeheartedly in their endeavor. But it is highly unlikely that they will succeed no matter how much evil "dark" money they contribute to the effort. The choice of "dark" is lol funny. Ooooo, being "dark" makes it so much more effective. That "transparent" money just ain't as powerful. "Dark" has the power of Siths and Vaders, the power of Satan and the underworld, conjuring up powerful evil forces which can only be resisted by the angelic white knigts of "transparent" progressive money and the uncorruptible saints of the Democrat party like Harry Reid. Actually, Jim's problem would easily go away here if the Kochs would just kick in some coin to Harry Reid. Then he would only say nice things about them. Might even arrange some tax breaks or favors for them.

But, that is the heart of the matter. If their intention is to eliminate progressivism, that is too just and honorable than to dirty it up by bribing both sides for personal gain.

You say there is nothing like this in liberal circles. Yes, there are those who want to preserve the progressive system and eliminate what is left of the constitutional system. And there are many of their donors who openly admit that.

It has been said in this thread that lobbyists and the law (campaign finance?) are the problem. The severest problem with those is at the Federal level. And that is so because the Federal level has become a progressive system, not a constitutional one.

It has been said that money in politics is a problem. Again, that problem is multiplied in a progressive, top down, overly powerful central government. And taking money ($17+ trillion and well over $100 trillion and growing in national debt and unfunded liabilities) out of politics at this stage may be too late. That kind of expenditure and debt by the Federal Government is directly a result of scrapping the constitutional order and transforming it into a progressive one. So progressivism has very deep claws in our body politic, and killing it may well be the only solution. And that may only be possible by a total economic collapse which opens the eyes and minds of enough of the populace to understand that what our government has been transformed into over the last hundred years is the true "dark" money. It is the real Sith and Vader empire. And the Republic we once were may have a chance to reemerge. Or . . . it may just be another crisis the progressive left can not let go to waste and caste us even more solidly into the service of an all powerful State. For our own good.

[scottw]

"Pretense and make-believe are thick in the air in Barack Obama’s Washington, where one’s alignment with the regnant values and priorities — one’s allegiance to, or at the very least one’s acquiescence in, the programs of the environmental lobby, the union lobby, the abortion lobby — acts as a sort of baptism, cleansing the ethical and intellectual impurities"


this thread confirms this statement......Jim didn't ask about the Koch brothers, he asked about Harry Reid's personal attack of them on the Senate floor...the response by the usual suspects is to attack the Koch brothers and ignore Harry Reid's behavior...amazing.... another example of "normalized reality" I guess...

from ..."NPR"

"Another day, another wave of Democratic attacks on the Koch brothers and their Republican allies.

Sen. Harry Reid, the Democratic majority leader, took to the Senate floor Monday to bash the Koch brothers and the GOP, as has become his habit in recent weeks."

Why do Democrats seem to be so fixated on the Koch brothers? First, the Koch brothers are arguably good for fundraising. Dave Weigel of Salon reported that Democratic email pitches that mentioned the Koch brothers generated more donations than those that didn't.

...... it's about defining Republican opponents of Democratic Senate candidates as essentially being stalking horses for the billionaire brothers.

"The signs are that Harry Reid is on the verge of losing his mind now that he's on the verge of losing his majority," said Brad Dayspring, a spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

.... it's quite something to see them attacking special interest money when George Soros funds their entire operation," Dayspring said. "Their attacks are laughable; they have to motivate their base in a year when they seem primed to sustain major electoral losses."

Actually, the explanations aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. All of them could actually explain why Democrats will try to keep the Koch theme going through Election Day.


http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit...thers-fixation

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

"[B]Jim didn't ask about the Koch brothers, he asked about Harry Reid's personal attack of them on the Senate floor...the response by the usual suspects is to attack the Koch brothers and ignore Harry Reid's behavior...amazing.... [/url]

Damn right, Liberals did the same exact thing, when in the 2008 campaign, Obama shot himself in the foot by admitting his goal was to "spread the wealth around." What did the liberals do? Did they explain what Obama meant? Did they try to state why "spreading the wealth around" is actually good policy? No. Instead, they launched personal attacks against the innocent man who asked a simple question, Joe The Plumber. He's not a licensed plumber, he didn't pay his taxes, he beats his wife, he's actually a mass-murderer, blah, blah, blah. Never address the issue at hand. Always divert attention to the evil republicans. I'm not even sure they are consciously aware that they are doing it.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

"[B]

"The signs are that Harry Reid is on the verge of losing his mind now that he's on the verge of losing his majority," said Brad Dayspring, a spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

l]

Love it! Mwahahahahaha...Reid is coming a bit un-glued, I'd say.