0
   

Soros and MoveOn claim ownership of the Dem Party

 
 
Reply Fri 10 Dec, 2004 11:49 pm
Lots of good links in this one, best to read it on FrontPage:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16284
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 2,257 • Replies: 30
No top replies

 
Einherjar
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Dec, 2004 09:52 am
Go Soros
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Dec, 2004 11:09 am
I wish them well. They will lead the Democrats to a worse defeat in 2008.

It is interesting to observe how easily those who are convinced they have an exclusive grasp on truth and right understanding, become the victims of delusions that fly in the face of the accumulating facts.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Dec, 2004 11:43 am
Re: Soros and MoveOn claim ownership of the Dem Party
gungasnake wrote:
Lots of good links in this one, best to read it on FrontPage:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=16284

Talk about hysterical. What is it with conservatives and Soros? Note that the article:

a) quotes a MoveOn alert in which MoveOn claims it "owns" the Democratic Party
b) quotes MoveOn as referring, in stating its claim, to the "grassroots contributors like us [who] gave more than $300 million to the Kerry campaign"
c) reminds us that "Soros spent $18 million" in this election cycle
d) concludes that it's Soros who's buying the Dem Party.

Back up the truck. Isn't there a bit of a dissynch going on in step d), here? Isn't 18 million just a very small portion of "more than 300 million"? So if MoveOn bases some claim to the party on the money it put into the campaign, isnt Soros just a small part of that? Didnt MoveOn become so big in the first place because it succeeded to rally hundreds of thousands of small donors like no DNC effort had ever done? So how does the stake they claim to the Party in their name translate into "Soros buying the Party"?

What is it that makes people project all their suspicion, hatred and prejudice on the one single person? Why does it always have to be a Jew, that one single person?
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Dec, 2004 12:00 pm
Nimh,

This time I believe it is you who is overreacting. I doubt that most people involved here even know (nor care) that Soros is a Jew. It is also a fact that Move On and its adherents are involved in the more or less endless internal dispute over leadership of the Democrat party. Soros was the principal fundraiser for the movement, and very energetically inserted himself into the fray during the last election.. Clinton went to great pains to portray himself as a centrist (he was making a virtue of necessity because Republicans controlled the Congress). Gore played the left-wing, populist card and won the allegiance of the various single-issue loonies and demagogues who make up so much of that party. Kerry didn't have this option because of rivalry with Dean on the left and the facts of his own background. Democrat ideologues now blame their election loss on Kerry's tactics in this area - it certainly couldn't be that the American people have rejected their ideas. Hence the assertions by some associated with Move On that they represent the "true" Democrat party. No big deal. I hope they succeed. It will ensure another defeat..
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Dec, 2004 12:09 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
This time I believe it is you who is overreacting. I doubt that most people involved here even know (nor care) that Soros is a Jew.

Perhaps. Its just that yet one more boogeyman seen as the manipulating, powerhungry, wealthy behind-the-scenes puppetmaster just happens to be a Jew ... trippy, how that happens.

georgeob1 wrote:
Soros was the principal fundraiser for the movement, and very energetically inserted himself into the fray during the last election..

"Principal fundraiser"? I thought MoveOn succeeded in raising hundreds of millions of dollars in small donations. How does that work with reducing/equating MoveOn unequivocally with "Soros", when his contribution (according to this article) was just 18 million?

georgeob1 wrote:
It is also a fact that Move On and its adherents are involved in the more or less endless internal dispute over leadership of the Democrat party. [..] Hence the assertions by some associated with Move On that they represent the "true" Democrat party. No big deal.

No, no big deal there - all that's undisputed. Hence why I didnt write about any of it, so I'm not quite sure how this part of your answer is relevant. All I am remarking on is this obsession with Soros. Since Soros and the US government have been most all the time on the same side in the many other countries where Soros has been spending his money, it seems a bit counterinstinctual. Irrational. I just dont understand it.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Dec, 2004 01:00 pm
Nimh,

The virulent anti-Semitism to which you are referring is much more a European phenomenon than an American one. You are projecting your vices on us and you are wrong.

Quote:
Perhaps. Its just that yet one more boogeyman seen as the manipulating, powerhungry, wealthy behind-the-scenes puppetmaster just happens to be a Jew ... trippy, how that happens.


Well the fact is that Soros IS wealthy, and powerhungry and that he HAS operated behind the scenes to manipulate the Democrat puppets in the recent elections. That he is a Jew has nothing to do with it.

Quote:
"Principal fundraiser"? I thought MoveOn succeeded in raising hundreds of millions of dollars in small donations. How does that work with reducing/equating MoveOn unequivocally with "Soros", when his contribution (according to this article) was just 18 million?


It remains a fact that Soros was one of the largest single Move On donors and was by a very wide margin the most visible and prominent of its spokesmen. You are quibbling.

During the last several years Soros has very deliberately used his money and prominence to advance certain political ideas he favors. He has written books, sponsored others about himself and his views and he has very vigorously advanced certain political views. That is entirely his right. (Indeed I agree with many - not all - of his ideas). However it does make him a political figure subject, as are all such figures, to criticism of his views and positions.

The real point here is whether or not his views and those of Move On will lead to success for the Democrats. I think not.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  2  
Reply Sat 11 Dec, 2004 01:49 pm
So long as the power elite within The Democratic Party think that is what's goin' on, are cool with it, and really wanna take the Party in that direction ... well, suffice it to say I see no reason to object - its their Party, and its their party.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Dec, 2004 01:55 pm
timber- Your last post reminded me of an old Lesley Gore Song:

Quote:
It's my party, and I'll cry if I want to
Cry if I want to, cry if I want to
You would cry too if it happened to you
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Dec, 2004 03:09 pm
Isn't is interesting that those who label themselves as "progressive" and favoring free thought and action, are often themselves the most stridently dogmatic in t5heir own political actions.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Dec, 2004 03:16 pm
Kinda like with Libertarians, you mean?
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Dec, 2004 03:37 pm
Phoenix32890 wrote:
timber- Your last post reminded me of an old Lesley Gore Song:


Laughing Not an accident Laughing
0 Replies
 
DimestoreDiva
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Dec, 2004 05:11 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
Isn't is interesting that those who label themselves as "progressive" and favoring free thought and action, are often themselves the most stridently dogmatic in t5heir own political actions.


It would only be interesting if it were true.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Dec, 2004 05:23 pm
A truth is a truth regardless whether or not the beholder recognizes it for such.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Dec, 2004 05:54 pm
and you're not just another beholder, Timber?

Oh I forget you've got that whole eagle's eye thing going on ... ;-)
0 Replies
 
arnielubbock
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Dec, 2004 03:09 pm
Soros spent more like 23 million, still a drop in the bucket:

http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/527indivsdetail.asp?ID=11001147458&Cycle=2004


Overall you might say that 527 committees have evened the playing field, easing the previous Republican advantage:

http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/527cmtes.asp?level=C&cycle=2004
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Jan, 2005 10:53 am
georgeob1 wrote:
Nimh,

The virulent anti-Semitism to which you are referring is much more a European phenomenon than an American one. You are projecting your vices on us and you are wrong.

Reading up on the book I didn't buy yesterday (Roth's The Plot Against America), I found this:

Quote:
Roth ratchets up the book's realism by sketching his wild tale strictly within the confines of the historical record. The gossip-monger Walter Winchell's voice wafts from the radio on Sunday nights, while the anti-Semitic radio preacher Charles Coughlin rallies his minions. The literate, feisty PM The Plot.

With this attention to historical detail, The Plot Against America


link to book review

Reading this reminded me of reading another article recently, in TNR, about the "godfather" of, I believe, the National Review, who was a rabid if eccentric anti-semite. (Looked it up: Albert Jay Nock)

Not making the point that "it is/was just as bad over there", btw - adding that in order to avoid this post triggering some kind of flaming - just reading up, learning. History's forgotten bits are always the most interesting.
0 Replies
 
timberlandko
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Jan, 2005 11:09 am
You've struck on somethin' there nimh; couple things to remember about history is that its mostly written by the victors, and most writers of history actively select the bits they determine oughtta become the "forgotten bits". I find it useful to engage in a sort of "comparative history" study. For events of the past couple centuries, a handy resource is the archives of newspapers and periodicals, and old diaries. A wonderful, readily accessible example exists in the many varying contemporary points of view relevant to the American Civil War.
0 Replies
 
Steppenwolf
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Jan, 2005 04:42 pm
Has no one here actually read the quoted language? The article quotes MoveOn.org. out of context, and this thread perpetuates the logical error. Soros never said that he owned the DNC, and MoveOn never said that either.

The actual quote reads:
Quote:
"In the last year, grassroots contributors like us gave more than $300 million to the Kerry campaign and the DNC, and proved that the Party doesn't need corporate cash to be competitive. Now it's our Party: we bought it, we own it, and we're going to take it back."

(my emphasis added)

Source: Gunga's source

All this is saying is that grassroots contributors LIKE MoveOn.org gave $300M, and thus that grassroots contributors own the DNC, not that MoveOn.org (or Soros, by extension) specifically owns the DNC. Read the language -- the "our" and "we" is a reference to "grassroots contributors" in general, not to either MoveOn.org or Soros specifically, nor is Soros ever mentioned. It would be ridiculous to allege that MoveOn.org, alone, gave that amount of money to Kerry's campaign, and thus a common sense reading of this language should caution against such a silly inference. $300M is the entirety of Kerry's campaign funding. See http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/index.asp?sort=E. Moreover, the figures cited for Soros' contributions are also misleading. Soros did not, and could, actually contribute $18M to either the Kerry campaign or the DNC . He may have spent that much on democratic activism, but not directly through contributions to the DNC or Kerry's campaign, both of which cannot legally accept that quantity of money. See the above url for Soros' actual contributions and for real info on the 2004 presidential contributions. While you're there, take a look at the largest contributors of all time. Should we conclude that the National Association of Realtors controls America (no. 2 of all time)? They gave more than even the inflated figures given for Soros. But claiming that the National Association of Realtors owns, or claims to own, the United States or either political party would be pure nonsense -- a conspiracy theory about a "Shadow Party" that simply doesn't exist. I have the same thoughts about this theory on the ownership or claimed ownership of the DNC.

Look at the facts, and try not to quote out of context. We'll all be better off.
0 Replies
 
Dookiestix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 25 Jan, 2005 07:07 pm
It is inherent within a neoconservative's nature to not recognize the truth whether they believe it or not. A prime example is offering quotes so out of context as to completely change the original intent of the author.

They all do it. It is their M.O. And they are rather effective at at.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Soros and MoveOn claim ownership of the Dem Party
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/19/2021 at 01:21:53