Soros finally draws a line in the sand...$10 Million to beat Bush!

[JanMichael]

http://www.newsday.com/news/politics/wire/sns-ap-soros-pac,0,1810007.story?coll=sns-ap-politics-headlines

"Soros, who in the past has donated on a smaller scale to Democratic candidates and the party, pledged the money to a political action committee called America Coming Together, spokesman Michael Vachon said Friday.

The group plans a $75 million effort to defeat Bush and "elect progressive officials at every level in 2004," targeting 17 key states: Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

"The fate of the world depends on the United States, and President Bush is leading us in the wrong direction," Soros said in a written statement. "ACT is an effective way to mobilize civil society, to convince people to go to the polls and vote for candidates who will reassert the value"

Sure it's a paltry sum compared to the right wing money but it's something!

I've got my problems with Soros too. Basically he's a "good" Capitalist. Sure he destroyed the French National Bank by forcing a privatisation. But generally speaking he's a decent corporate raider.

Honestly? I'll take whatever money we can getin order to wage our battles...

[sujan]

1. Soros is onboard, how about buffett now?

[JanMichael]

2. Too many changes in latitudes, changes in attitudes.

Got a bottle of rum, chum?

[tameszu]

5. And don't forget Bill Gates' dad...

...ironically fighting against the repeal of the estate tax and writing Nation columns. He should know--his family would be contributing like half of the total revenue from that thing. Take that, you worthless robot bastid Steve Forbes.

[sujan]

7. yes

William Gates II used to be a republican, he was disgusted by extremists who hijacked the party.

Bill Gates himself is fairly liberal (not a leftist) in many issues, particularly the social ones. Plus the fact that he has pledged to spend most of his money on philanthropic issues before he dies.

[tameszu]

3. Soros is not a "good" capitalist, he's a thief...

...with a heart of gold.

As I understand it, Soros was never a capitalist; he was a speculator who made a crap load of money through high class betting and exploiting the holes in the international financial system and thereby put many people's economies at risk.

Then he wrote a book telling people why we shouldn't let people like him get rich doing that sort of thing and is now spending all of his ill-gotten gain on nice progressive causes.

I think I like him on balance--nothing he did probably killed anyone...

[sujan]

4. Robin Hood?

Your favourite robber.

[short bus president]

8. some of his investments

are beneficial for regular folks. JetBlue would never have flown if it wasn't for Soros, and I understand it's somewhat of a godsend for people who have to fly those (admittedly limited) routes alot.

[ima_sinnic]

9. yes, this article reveals the "real" Soros

George Soros--A Profile
Neil Clark
New Statesman (UK), June 2, 2003

George Soros is angry. In common with 90 per cent of the world's population, the Man Who Broke the Bank of England has had enough of President Bush and his foreign policy. In a recent article in the Financial Times, Soros condemned the Bush administration's policies on Iraq as "fundamentally wrong" -- based as they were on a "false ideology that US might gave it the right to impose its will on the world".

Wow! Has one of the world's richest men -- the archetypal amoral capitalist who made billions out of the Far Eastern currency crash of 1997 and who last year was fined $2m for insider trading by a court in France -- seen the light in his old age? (He is 72.) Should we pop the champagne corks and toast his conversion?

Not before asking what really motivates him. Soros likes to portray himself as an outsider, an independent-minded Hungarian emigre and philosopher-pundit who stands detached from the US military-industrial complex. But take a look at the board members of the NGOs he organises and finances. . . .

Soros may not, as some have suggested, be a fully paid-up CIA agent. But that his companies and NGOs are closely wrapped up in US expansionism cannot seriously be doubted.

So why is he so upset with Bush? The answer is simple. Soros is angry not with Bush's aims -- of extending Pax Americana and making the world safe for global capitalists like himself -- but with the crass and blundering way Bush is going about it. By making US ambitions so clear, the Bush gang has committed the cardinal sin of giving the game away. For years, Soros and his NGOs have gone about their work extending the boundaries of the "free world" so skilfully that hardly anyone noticed. Now a Texan redneck and a gang of overzealous neo-cons have blown it. . . .

Soros knows a better way -- armed with a few billion dollars, a handful of NGOs and a nod and a wink from the US State Department, it is perfectly possible to topple foreign governments that are bad for business, seize a country's assets, and even to get thanked for your benevolence afterwards. Soros has done it. . . .

for all his liberal quoting of Popper, Soros deems a society "open" not if it respects human rights and basic freedoms, but if it is "open" for him and his associates to make money. And, indeed, Soros has made money in every country he has helped to prise "open" . . .

-----------------

what I see is global-level gang warfare. Of the Crips and the Bloods, which do you prefer?

[JanMichael]

10. Like I said: I'll take what I can get.

First get Bush out of the WH then turn attentions elsewhere.

[tedoll78]

6. Note the state's he's fighting in.

All states that our candidate will be going after. Wonderful news - we can spend our campaign money elsewhere since Soros is taking cae of GOTV. It should minimize Bush's fundraising advantage.

[Yupster]

11. Problem with campaign spending limits

A law is passed limiting to $ 2,000 the amount anyone can give to a candidate, so the billionaires just give their $ 10 million to a PAC instead.

[JanMichael]

12. Figures you would dog the story!

Bush is expected to raise more that $200,000,000 for his uncontested primary campaign so whatever we (I say "we" to denote the people who don't support Bush) can generate is fine by me.

Frankly I think the whole system sticks, money has had a corrosive effect, but for now we have to work within it.

How sick is this mess we're in?

http://www.opensecrets.org/2000elect/index/AllCands.htm

Let's see, Gore got 500,000 or so more votes yet Bush raised...Um...$193,088,650 compared to Gore's $132,804,039. Hmm. The new laws should hit the Dems the hardest so instead of around a 3 to 2 disadvantage we'll have a 2 to 1 disadvantage in money.

http://www.opensecrets.org/

Republicans should be very happy.

[Yupster]

13. Bush is raising his $ 200 million $ 2,000 at a time

there's no reason why the Democrats can't match him.

I bet Dean will match him if he gets the nomination.

Democratic candidates just need to tell their voters to put their money where their mouth is.

What did Gore get last time? 50 million votes? And he couldn't get an average of $ 4 per voter in campaign contributions? I don't believe that. Democrats just need to start putting their money where their mouths are and start sending in those $ 20 checks to their nominee.

Someone linked to a website a while back that showed how many people donated from each state to either Gore or Bush's campaign, and it was embarrassing. If I remember right, Bush had twice or three times as many donors as Gore in places like Tennessee and California.

I know this is preaching to the choir because most people here at DU probably do donate what they can, but as a party, the numbers have been awful.

I'm not a Dean supporter, but I admire he way Dean has told people he wanted money, organized a good effort to get it, and has gotten it.