Al Bore: It's time for him to go - Permanently

[BuckyXTC]

RE: Nixon, Reagan, Clinton

 

Bitchboy:

 

I'm with you on this one.....socialism is preferable to the slavery wrought by unbridled capitalism.

 

"Workers of the world, unite! You have nothing to lose but your chains."

[Guest DevonSFescort]

RE: Nixon, Reagan, Clinton

 

>As I suspect you would agree, the reason GW

>Bush raised so much money was because, for him and his

>administration, everything would be "for sale"

 

An interesting article by Jonathan Chait in The New Republic (I've only seen it in the print version; it doesn't seem to be up on their site) compares Bush's fundraising to Clinton's, and makes a fascinating point. Whereas pretty much all of Bush's money came either from corporations or from sources like the religious right that generally aren't hostile to the corporate agenda, Clinton's money came from a wide variety of sources -- some corporations, sure, but also from groups, like labor unions and environmental groups, etc., that have a lot more conflicts with big business (and sometimes with each other). The result, Chait argues, was that Clinton was only a little beholden to all these sources, instead of being very beholden to one (corporate America), and therefore was freer than Bush to alienate each of them from time to time. In other words, whereas Clinton could divide his time between thinking about pandering to his donors and thinking about policy, with Bush it's ALL about pandering to his donors. It's a partisan argument, of course, and perhaps a little simplistic, but an interesting one nevertheless.