I wouldn't call them liars and thieves. They have business interests that are certainly open to being disrupted. Once you get that big it is a lot easier to maintain through increasing regulation/subsidies/political lobbying.
It isn't necessarily their fault the system is fucked, although they may need to die before we can get back to true democracy and capitalism.
I mean it's right infront of everyone, they're being brazen enough about it. The transparency is all there, people just don't care.
For what though? You have all this big money on both sides influencing elections, what is it really doing? It's just making the government more powerful. You want small government? Stop letting billionaires influence elections and you'll have a lot better chance at achieving that.
Even if you agree with some of what the Koch's believe, their advocating outside of the political process would be far more ideal.
If you think the Koch Brothers donate to political groups you would be correct, if you think they are near the top, you would be wrong.
They are 48th on the list. Guess who is 19th and guess who is number 1.
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php
Those numbers don't include 501c contributions which is where a lot of the donations are these days. That is where the Koch's do most of their contributing. You really thought the sheet metal union was outspending their political network? They've publicly said their network of donors plans to spend 900 million this election cycle.
They're not the only offenders, just the most egregious. The telecommunications and utilities are usually up there because they have to work closely with government so spending makes sense for them to get favorable regulation.
Most of the innovation in this country has come in technology over the past 30-40 years because that is the 1 industry where there really isn't much regulation. It's a constant rise and fall of winners and losers and the gov't mostly stays out of the way and lets technology do its thing. Big companies that were stalwarts failed all the time and nobody stayed on top forever.
These other industries like health care, higher education, transportation, energy. It's really a joke how little they've progressed.
These other industries like health care, higher education, transportation, energy. It's really a joke how little they've progressed.
Most of the largest donors are democratic, the vast majority. And most of them are some sort of union.
Once again, it's the special interests that carry the day, every day all day
501c4 "shadow money"/Rise of superPACs raise just as much as donations to candidates now. Not like it even matters but Republicans crushed the Dems in these categories the last few election cycles. These guys aren't donating hundreds of millions to get 0.0% ROI.
Lobbying is a different issue and deals more with big business rather than individuals but I could list endless examples of big business/unions lobbying government to stifle competition/increase regulation/barrier to entry.
I'm not going to get into what every single dollar of this goes towards but if you think big government, crony capitalism, entitlements, subsidies, etc are a good idea then I'd say you probably should want these laws to stay in place. It's now a 6-8 billion dollar industry per election cycle.
Then you have the issue that the $ raising distorts the chances for candidates. Jeb Bush's pac has raised 103M before the first debate, Hilary will probably do similar #s once she ramps up her fund raising. So your not even allowing for the political process to play out without it being distorted by the status quo establishment candidates having an artificial legup on the competition. Someone like Kasich who seems to genuinely resonate has an uphill battle because he has 1/10th the resources of a Jeb Bush. A candidate like Reagan or Clinton who weren't establishment candidates and cameout of nowhere would be at significant disadvantages in this environment.
Lobbying is a different issue and deals more with big business rather than individuals but I could list endless examples of big business/unions lobbying government to stifle competition/increase regulation/barrier to entry.
I'm not going to get into what every single dollar of this goes towards but if you think big government, crony capitalism, entitlements, subsidies, etc are a good idea then I'd say you probably should want these laws to stay in place. It's now a 6-8 billion dollar industry per election cycle.
Then you have the issue that the $ raising distorts the chances for candidates. Jeb Bush's pac has raised 103M before the first debate, Hilary will probably do similar #s once she ramps up her fund raising. So your not even allowing for the political process to play out without it being distorted by the status quo establishment candidates having an artificial legup on the competition. Someone like Kasich who seems to genuinely resonate has an uphill battle because he has 1/10th the resources of a Jeb Bush. A candidate like Reagan or Clinton who weren't establishment candidates and cameout of nowhere would be at significant disadvantages in this environment.
This Is Why We Should Fear George Soros, Not The Koch Brothers
Image credit: Norway UN (New York) (Flickr)
Should we fear those who support the ideals that made America great?
Richard Larsen April 10, 2014 at 10:17am
Share on Facebook Tweet Email Print
Judging from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s nearly daily diatribes on the floor of the U.S. Senate, George W. Bush has been retired as the most despised villain and the cause of all the evils that plague the world. Bush has been replaced by the Koch (a Dutch name, pronounced “Coke”) brothers, who are often maligned by the left for their pecuniary influence in politics. Since those on the left are not equally malevolent toward George Soros, who does the same thing, it’s clearly not the money in politics that bothers them — it’s the ideology.
The Washington Post’s Pulitzer Prize winning Fact Check granted a “Four Pinocchio” rating to Reid’s latest round of attacks. The Post says Reid is “setting a high standard for deceptive speech,” and concludes that Reid’s party is “reaching blindly” for someone to cast the blame of their own failures on. The paper, critical of the falsity of Reid’s claim, chides him with, “If you want to join a gun fight, don’t fire blanks.”
David and Charles Koch are brothers who run Koch Industries, an oil refinery business that is the second largest private firm in the country. The brothers are tied at number 6 on Forbes top billionaires list with personal net worth of about $41 billion each. They’ve expanded and maintained their fortunes by successfully providing the refined product that keeps America moving – oil.
George Soros is chairman of Soros Fund Management, a hedge fund company. Soros is number 27 on Forbes list with a net worth of $23 billion. He’s made his fortune in large part by selling short against international currencies and collapsing financial institutions. In 1997, he was dubbed “the man who broke the Bank of England”; and he was blamed by the Malaysian Prime Minister for collapsing their currency during the Asian financial crisis. He was also convicted of illegal financial dealings in France. His big bet now is collapsing the U.S. dollar and the free enterprise system.
Economist Paul Krugman has been critical of Soros and others like him, “who not only move money in anticipation of a currency crisis, but actually do their best to trigger that crisis for fun and profit. These new actors on the scene do not yet have a standard name; my proposed term is ‘Soroi’.”
The Koch brothers and Soros spend lavishly in politics. They support individual candidates, contribute to political party campaign funds, lobby politicians, bankroll political action committees, and have established foundations and think tanks to influence politics.
The Kochs spend by far the most, but the bulk of it goes to lobbying. The Open Society Institute is one of George Soros’ organizations, and they provide part of the funding of OpenSecrets.org; so even realizing that their data may be skewed toward a more pejorative coverage of the Kochs, I’m going to rely on their data. According to Open Secrets, the Koch brothers have spent (or as liberals typically describe it, “invested”) over $50 million in lobbying from 1998-2010. During that same time, Soros and his primary Lobbying organization, the Open Society Policy Center, spent about $13 million.
Donations to federal candidates, parties, and political action committees give a smaller advantage to the Kochs. They invested $2.58 million vs. Soros’ $1.74 million from 1989 to 2010. When extended to include the past four years, the Koch brothers have contributed $18 million in political donations. This sounds like a great number, until we look at the 58 organizations ahead of them, including 18 different unions, according to Open Secrets. Those unions’ political contributions total over $638 million, almost all of whose funds go to liberal candidates, and is more than 35 times what the Kochs donate. Among those are the American Federation of State, County, & Municipal Employees ($60,667,379), the National Education Association ($53,594,488), the United Auto Workers ($41,667,858), and the Service Employees International Union ($38,395,690.)
But from here, the money for political influence gets a little more shady. From 2001 to 2010, the Koch brothers invested $1.5 million in other political groups, called 527 organizations, compared to Soros’ whopping $32.5 million.
The proliferation and expanded influence of 527s was made possible by the problematic McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform of 2002, so named because of the tax code, Section 527, that they fall under. As described by Benjamin Dangl, the groups “operate as shadow political campaigns working indirectly for or against a particular candidate.” Once contributed funds get to these groups, they can go anywhere; and the audit trail is virtually non-existent. Some are run totally above board and are very straightforward in their objectives. Many others are not. As Dangl says, “Prominent think tanks and campaign finance reform lobbyists say 527s are ‘illegal loopholes’ that enable the privatization of political campaigns.”
The groups that these men contribute to tell an even more significant tale than the sheer dollar volume they pump into our dysfunctional crony-capitalist, or corporatist, political system. Since the Koch brothers are ideological libertarians, they’re driven by the classical-liberal Jeffersonian philosophy that America was founded on. Perhaps nothing defines this self-defined mission for the brothers better than the mission statement on the Cato Institute website, which states, “The mission of the Cato Institute is to originate, disseminate, and increase understanding of public policies based on the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and peace.”
The Cato Institute, the Koch’s crown jewel, was established 40 years ago with seed money from Charles Koch, and his brother David still serves on the Board of the organization. Cato is recognized as the sixth most influential think tank in the nation, and number 14 internationally, with its scholarly and empirically documented research.
They also have contributed significantly to the Reason Foundation, publisher of Reason Magazine, applying reason and logic to economic and personal liberty issues. Nobel laureate Milton Friedman strongly supported the Foundation. And with a grant of $30 million, the Koch brothers were instrumental in the establishment of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, with similar objectives.
George Soros runs the Open Society Institute and the Soros.org website; and he contributes heavily to many organizations that ideologically are aligned with leftist causes, including Moveon.org. He is reviled abroad for his shady efforts to foment revolution and collapse currencies. His foundations have been accused of shielding spies and breaking currency laws, and he’s invested over $400 million in institutions of higher education to promulgate and teach his extremist ideology.
In short, the Kochs and Soros are heavily invested in politics and are, by all standards, prototypical “one percenters” in income, net worth, and political influence. And it would appear, at least ostensibly, that all three are playing the influence-for-money game according to the rules established by Congress. There is near universal contempt for the crony capitalism and corrupt corporatism that has tainted our political institutions and politicians (and adulterated our free-market system). But Congress has created the rules these players play by. Blaming the Kochs and Soros for using their resources to buy influence is like blaming collegiate athletes for the rules established by the NCAA.
Since most of the Koch’s political money goes into lobbying, their funds are well documented, as required by congressional accounting rules. With most of Soros’ political “investments” going into 527s, the funds are less traceable and has earned Soros the dubious honor of being dubbed the “Godfather to the left.”
The classical-liberal principles of individual freedom and free markets that are so fully embraced and advanced by Charles and David Koch are the very principles the nation was founded upon. They are the principles that made America great. The progressive socialistic agenda advanced by Soros is antithetical to America’s founding precepts; and it is heavily invested in the failure of not only the U.S. dollar, but the collapse of the U.S. economic system.
As distasteful as the pay-for-influence system is, the ideological objectives and uses of that influence should be of even greater concern. Should we fear those who support the ideals that made America great, or the one who seeks to destroy and fundamentally transform the country?
Should we fear those who support the ideals that made America great?
Richard Larsen April 10, 2014 at 10:17am
Share on Facebook Tweet Email Print
Judging from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s nearly daily diatribes on the floor of the U.S. Senate, George W. Bush has been retired as the most despised villain and the cause of all the evils that plague the world. Bush has been replaced by the Koch (a Dutch name, pronounced “Coke”) brothers, who are often maligned by the left for their pecuniary influence in politics. Since those on the left are not equally malevolent toward George Soros, who does the same thing, it’s clearly not the money in politics that bothers them — it’s the ideology.
The Washington Post’s Pulitzer Prize winning Fact Check granted a “Four Pinocchio” rating to Reid’s latest round of attacks. The Post says Reid is “setting a high standard for deceptive speech,” and concludes that Reid’s party is “reaching blindly” for someone to cast the blame of their own failures on. The paper, critical of the falsity of Reid’s claim, chides him with, “If you want to join a gun fight, don’t fire blanks.”
David and Charles Koch are brothers who run Koch Industries, an oil refinery business that is the second largest private firm in the country. The brothers are tied at number 6 on Forbes top billionaires list with personal net worth of about $41 billion each. They’ve expanded and maintained their fortunes by successfully providing the refined product that keeps America moving – oil.
George Soros is chairman of Soros Fund Management, a hedge fund company. Soros is number 27 on Forbes list with a net worth of $23 billion. He’s made his fortune in large part by selling short against international currencies and collapsing financial institutions. In 1997, he was dubbed “the man who broke the Bank of England”; and he was blamed by the Malaysian Prime Minister for collapsing their currency during the Asian financial crisis. He was also convicted of illegal financial dealings in France. His big bet now is collapsing the U.S. dollar and the free enterprise system.
Economist Paul Krugman has been critical of Soros and others like him, “who not only move money in anticipation of a currency crisis, but actually do their best to trigger that crisis for fun and profit. These new actors on the scene do not yet have a standard name; my proposed term is ‘Soroi’.”
The Koch brothers and Soros spend lavishly in politics. They support individual candidates, contribute to political party campaign funds, lobby politicians, bankroll political action committees, and have established foundations and think tanks to influence politics.
The Kochs spend by far the most, but the bulk of it goes to lobbying. The Open Society Institute is one of George Soros’ organizations, and they provide part of the funding of OpenSecrets.org; so even realizing that their data may be skewed toward a more pejorative coverage of the Kochs, I’m going to rely on their data. According to Open Secrets, the Koch brothers have spent (or as liberals typically describe it, “invested”) over $50 million in lobbying from 1998-2010. During that same time, Soros and his primary Lobbying organization, the Open Society Policy Center, spent about $13 million.
Donations to federal candidates, parties, and political action committees give a smaller advantage to the Kochs. They invested $2.58 million vs. Soros’ $1.74 million from 1989 to 2010. When extended to include the past four years, the Koch brothers have contributed $18 million in political donations. This sounds like a great number, until we look at the 58 organizations ahead of them, including 18 different unions, according to Open Secrets. Those unions’ political contributions total over $638 million, almost all of whose funds go to liberal candidates, and is more than 35 times what the Kochs donate. Among those are the American Federation of State, County, & Municipal Employees ($60,667,379), the National Education Association ($53,594,488), the United Auto Workers ($41,667,858), and the Service Employees International Union ($38,395,690.)
But from here, the money for political influence gets a little more shady. From 2001 to 2010, the Koch brothers invested $1.5 million in other political groups, called 527 organizations, compared to Soros’ whopping $32.5 million.
The proliferation and expanded influence of 527s was made possible by the problematic McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform of 2002, so named because of the tax code, Section 527, that they fall under. As described by Benjamin Dangl, the groups “operate as shadow political campaigns working indirectly for or against a particular candidate.” Once contributed funds get to these groups, they can go anywhere; and the audit trail is virtually non-existent. Some are run totally above board and are very straightforward in their objectives. Many others are not. As Dangl says, “Prominent think tanks and campaign finance reform lobbyists say 527s are ‘illegal loopholes’ that enable the privatization of political campaigns.”
The groups that these men contribute to tell an even more significant tale than the sheer dollar volume they pump into our dysfunctional crony-capitalist, or corporatist, political system. Since the Koch brothers are ideological libertarians, they’re driven by the classical-liberal Jeffersonian philosophy that America was founded on. Perhaps nothing defines this self-defined mission for the brothers better than the mission statement on the Cato Institute website, which states, “The mission of the Cato Institute is to originate, disseminate, and increase understanding of public policies based on the principles of individual liberty, limited government, free markets, and peace.”
The Cato Institute, the Koch’s crown jewel, was established 40 years ago with seed money from Charles Koch, and his brother David still serves on the Board of the organization. Cato is recognized as the sixth most influential think tank in the nation, and number 14 internationally, with its scholarly and empirically documented research.
They also have contributed significantly to the Reason Foundation, publisher of Reason Magazine, applying reason and logic to economic and personal liberty issues. Nobel laureate Milton Friedman strongly supported the Foundation. And with a grant of $30 million, the Koch brothers were instrumental in the establishment of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, with similar objectives.
George Soros runs the Open Society Institute and the Soros.org website; and he contributes heavily to many organizations that ideologically are aligned with leftist causes, including Moveon.org. He is reviled abroad for his shady efforts to foment revolution and collapse currencies. His foundations have been accused of shielding spies and breaking currency laws, and he’s invested over $400 million in institutions of higher education to promulgate and teach his extremist ideology.
In short, the Kochs and Soros are heavily invested in politics and are, by all standards, prototypical “one percenters” in income, net worth, and political influence. And it would appear, at least ostensibly, that all three are playing the influence-for-money game according to the rules established by Congress. There is near universal contempt for the crony capitalism and corrupt corporatism that has tainted our political institutions and politicians (and adulterated our free-market system). But Congress has created the rules these players play by. Blaming the Kochs and Soros for using their resources to buy influence is like blaming collegiate athletes for the rules established by the NCAA.
Since most of the Koch’s political money goes into lobbying, their funds are well documented, as required by congressional accounting rules. With most of Soros’ political “investments” going into 527s, the funds are less traceable and has earned Soros the dubious honor of being dubbed the “Godfather to the left.”
The classical-liberal principles of individual freedom and free markets that are so fully embraced and advanced by Charles and David Koch are the very principles the nation was founded upon. They are the principles that made America great. The progressive socialistic agenda advanced by Soros is antithetical to America’s founding precepts; and it is heavily invested in the failure of not only the U.S. dollar, but the collapse of the U.S. economic system.
As distasteful as the pay-for-influence system is, the ideological objectives and uses of that influence should be of even greater concern. Should we fear those who support the ideals that made America great, or the one who seeks to destroy and fundamentally transform the country?
[h=2]Mo Money Mo Politics[/h]Column: The ‘New York Times’ gets money in politics all wrong
SHARE
TWEET
EMAIL
BY: Matthew Continetti
August 7, 2015 5:00 am
“Fewer than 400 families are responsible for almost half the money raised in the 2016 presidential campaign, a concentration of political donors that is unprecedented in the modern era,” the New York Timesbreathlessly reported last Sunday. The popularity of so-called Super PACs, which can raise unlimited funds, has allowed the wealthy to dominate the fundraising scene. “The intensifying reliance on big money in politics mirrors the concentration of American wealth more broadly.” Democracy, we are meant to believe, is at stake.
Drawing a connection between Republican dominance in high-dollar giving and the apparent increase in income inequality is a fashionable political and journalistic trend—one that makes no sense. Liberal economists say inequality has been growing for decades, as Democrats alternated control of Congress and the presidency with Republicans and often enjoyed a big-money advantage. I don’t recall the Times fretting during the 1990s, when Hillary Clinton’s husband deregulated Wall Street and the Democratic Party was rolling, sometimes drowning, in cash.
Then, in 2004, a small group of extremely wealthy people decided to influence the political process. They devised their plan at a secret gathering in the Hamptons, where they began issuing seven-figure checks to organizations devoted to an ideological agenda and the overthrow of a president who, at the time, was still relatively popular. These donors had grown rich off Wall Street investments, off selling insurance and subprime mortgages—classic liberal bugaboos. And they stood to profit from the increased access and favorable policies they would enjoy if their preferred candidates won the election.
How did the New York Times cover this attempted putsch? On May 31, the Times published a profile of one of these oligarchs, “And for His Next Feat, a Billionaire Sets Sights on Bush,” which described the “rousing standing ovation” that hedge fund billionaire George Soros received for a “blistering attack on President Bush” delivered at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine in Manhattan. The Hungarian-born Soros, the Times said, “has emerged as a financial backer of Democrats, becoming a welcome source of money and a lightning rod for criticism.” Not criticism from the Times, to be sure, which extolled Soros’ Horatio Alger life story and described the liberal good works of his Open Society foundations.
The newspaper of record included favorable quotes from associates—Soros approaches political giving “like a business,” said one of his employees—and noted that Soros maintained his distance from the day-to-day operations of the left-wing institutions he seeded. “For instance,” the Timesreported, “even though he and Senator John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic nominee, used to see each other socially in Sun Valley, where they both have homes, they have not talked recently.” How noble.
In July 2004 the Times Magazine published “Wiring the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy” by Matt Bai, an in-depth look at the Soros operation. “The real significance of Soros’ involvement in politics has little to do with the dollar amount of his contributions,” Bai wrote. “What will stand out as important, when we look back decades from now at the 2004 campaign, will be the political model he created for everyone else.” Bai’s article remains an excellent introduction to the contemporary Democratic Party. It contains no mention of income inequality, no suggestion that Soros’ outsized role in shaping the oldest political party in the world might have social or moral implications.
What seems to have concerned the New York Times most, in fact, was defending Soros against charges that he was too powerful. It’s “a little silly” to suggest that Soros “has resolved to buy the Democratic Party,” Bai wrote. “If George Soros really felt like buying the party, you would know it.” In September 2004, when the GOP gathered in New York to nominate Bush for a second term, Paul Krugman latched on to some of the shakier criticisms of Soros, and said they were evidence that “many of the people at the convention, for all their flag-waving, hate America.” His column was headlined “Feel the Hate.” I can certainly feel Krugman’s.
A September 2004 article by Glen Justice, “New Pet Cause for the Very Rich: Swaying the Election,” noted, “Democrats got an early start financing 527 groups,” and called Susie Tompkins Buell, the centimillionaire apparel queen and left-wing donor, “one of the new stars of political giving this year.” A Katharine Q. Seelye article the next month reported that Soros-aligned groups were looking “far beyond Election Day” to “build a permanent ‘message machine’ and strategic apparatus to counter Republicans.” They succeeded.
Soros ended up spending more than $23 million in 2004. All of the money went to liberal groups. His friend, the now-deceased insurance magnate Peter Lewis, contributed another $23 million. Clinton bro Steve Bing gave $14 million. Herb and Marion Sandler, the subprime monarchs, donated $13 million—all to liberals.
Indeed, of the top 20 donors to 527 groups in 2004, only seven gave to conservative-leaning organizations. Liberals dominated the outside spending contest that year. Liberals dominated the outside spending contest in 1996, in 1998, in 2000, in 2002. Liberals dominated the contest in 2006. They dominated it in 2008. And the Center for Responsive Politics totals do not capture the full range of union spending for liberal causes and Democratic candidates, which the Wall Street Journalcalculates is as much as “four times as much … as generally thought.”
It was only in 2010, in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, and in the run-up to the reelection campaign of our first black president, that the media took a special interest in the malign effects of money in politics. Now it was the conservative and libertarian rich, stung by President Obama’s tax increases and regulatory agenda, who sought change. The sums they raised through outside groups in 2010 and 2012 were enormous—about enough to match the overwhelming spending of the Obama campaign.
The idea that 400 wealthy families are manipulating American politics to enrich themselves and make the country more unequal is enticing. There may even be some truth to it. But the story told by theTimes is simplistic. First, it makes a certain amount of sense that right now the “concentration of donors is greatest on the Republican side,” since the Republicans are at the beginning of their most open and competitive presidential primary in memory, with 17 candidates, one of whom can draw from a more than $2 billion fortune. The Democratic primary, meanwhile, is ridiculously uncompetitive—yet the Times’s list still contains many $1 million donors to Hillary Clinton, including Soros and Herb Sandler and Steven Spielberg. Expect those big donations to grow.
Many of the most important liberal donors, such as Fed Eychaner, Tom Steyer, and James Simons, have not yet entered the outside spending game. Steyer spent $74 million in the 2014 cycle, andMichael Bloomberg spent $28 million—more than twice the amount donated by Sheldon Adelson, the biggest donor on the Republican side that cycle. Eychaner spent $10 million.
The Times notes that New York hedge fund billionaire Robert Mercer’s $11 million in contributions makes him “the top known political donor in the country so far this election cycle.” But the article contains not a single mention—not one—of the liberal Simons, who is Mercer’s business partner, andwho spent roughly the same amount as Mercer in 2014. Now, from a strategic point of view, it makes a lot of sense for a hedge fund to have stakes in both the Democratic Party and the Tea Party wing of the GOP. Indeed, such a fund would be a natural subject for an in-depth article by the campaign finance reporters of the New York Times. That article hasn’t been written.
Let it be said until the end of days: Money is necessary but not sufficient in politics, both the Republican and Democratic parties rely on wealthy donors, the motives of all of these donors is a mix of altruism and self-interest, the managerial class that rules the world is divided into right- and left-wings that struggle over control of resources and status, and one of the weapons the left wing uses to subdue the representatives of carbon energy, heavy industry, and conservative finance is “campaign finance reform,” which strengthen the hand of government, media, and labor. What’s more troubling: That rich people are engaged in politics, or that the newspaper of record isn’t telling us the whole story?
SHARE
TWEET
George Soros / AP
BY: Matthew Continetti
August 7, 2015 5:00 am
“Fewer than 400 families are responsible for almost half the money raised in the 2016 presidential campaign, a concentration of political donors that is unprecedented in the modern era,” the New York Timesbreathlessly reported last Sunday. The popularity of so-called Super PACs, which can raise unlimited funds, has allowed the wealthy to dominate the fundraising scene. “The intensifying reliance on big money in politics mirrors the concentration of American wealth more broadly.” Democracy, we are meant to believe, is at stake.
Drawing a connection between Republican dominance in high-dollar giving and the apparent increase in income inequality is a fashionable political and journalistic trend—one that makes no sense. Liberal economists say inequality has been growing for decades, as Democrats alternated control of Congress and the presidency with Republicans and often enjoyed a big-money advantage. I don’t recall the Times fretting during the 1990s, when Hillary Clinton’s husband deregulated Wall Street and the Democratic Party was rolling, sometimes drowning, in cash.
Then, in 2004, a small group of extremely wealthy people decided to influence the political process. They devised their plan at a secret gathering in the Hamptons, where they began issuing seven-figure checks to organizations devoted to an ideological agenda and the overthrow of a president who, at the time, was still relatively popular. These donors had grown rich off Wall Street investments, off selling insurance and subprime mortgages—classic liberal bugaboos. And they stood to profit from the increased access and favorable policies they would enjoy if their preferred candidates won the election.
How did the New York Times cover this attempted putsch? On May 31, the Times published a profile of one of these oligarchs, “And for His Next Feat, a Billionaire Sets Sights on Bush,” which described the “rousing standing ovation” that hedge fund billionaire George Soros received for a “blistering attack on President Bush” delivered at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine in Manhattan. The Hungarian-born Soros, the Times said, “has emerged as a financial backer of Democrats, becoming a welcome source of money and a lightning rod for criticism.” Not criticism from the Times, to be sure, which extolled Soros’ Horatio Alger life story and described the liberal good works of his Open Society foundations.
The newspaper of record included favorable quotes from associates—Soros approaches political giving “like a business,” said one of his employees—and noted that Soros maintained his distance from the day-to-day operations of the left-wing institutions he seeded. “For instance,” the Timesreported, “even though he and Senator John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic nominee, used to see each other socially in Sun Valley, where they both have homes, they have not talked recently.” How noble.
In July 2004 the Times Magazine published “Wiring the Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy” by Matt Bai, an in-depth look at the Soros operation. “The real significance of Soros’ involvement in politics has little to do with the dollar amount of his contributions,” Bai wrote. “What will stand out as important, when we look back decades from now at the 2004 campaign, will be the political model he created for everyone else.” Bai’s article remains an excellent introduction to the contemporary Democratic Party. It contains no mention of income inequality, no suggestion that Soros’ outsized role in shaping the oldest political party in the world might have social or moral implications.
What seems to have concerned the New York Times most, in fact, was defending Soros against charges that he was too powerful. It’s “a little silly” to suggest that Soros “has resolved to buy the Democratic Party,” Bai wrote. “If George Soros really felt like buying the party, you would know it.” In September 2004, when the GOP gathered in New York to nominate Bush for a second term, Paul Krugman latched on to some of the shakier criticisms of Soros, and said they were evidence that “many of the people at the convention, for all their flag-waving, hate America.” His column was headlined “Feel the Hate.” I can certainly feel Krugman’s.
A September 2004 article by Glen Justice, “New Pet Cause for the Very Rich: Swaying the Election,” noted, “Democrats got an early start financing 527 groups,” and called Susie Tompkins Buell, the centimillionaire apparel queen and left-wing donor, “one of the new stars of political giving this year.” A Katharine Q. Seelye article the next month reported that Soros-aligned groups were looking “far beyond Election Day” to “build a permanent ‘message machine’ and strategic apparatus to counter Republicans.” They succeeded.
Soros ended up spending more than $23 million in 2004. All of the money went to liberal groups. His friend, the now-deceased insurance magnate Peter Lewis, contributed another $23 million. Clinton bro Steve Bing gave $14 million. Herb and Marion Sandler, the subprime monarchs, donated $13 million—all to liberals.
Indeed, of the top 20 donors to 527 groups in 2004, only seven gave to conservative-leaning organizations. Liberals dominated the outside spending contest that year. Liberals dominated the outside spending contest in 1996, in 1998, in 2000, in 2002. Liberals dominated the contest in 2006. They dominated it in 2008. And the Center for Responsive Politics totals do not capture the full range of union spending for liberal causes and Democratic candidates, which the Wall Street Journalcalculates is as much as “four times as much … as generally thought.”
It was only in 2010, in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, and in the run-up to the reelection campaign of our first black president, that the media took a special interest in the malign effects of money in politics. Now it was the conservative and libertarian rich, stung by President Obama’s tax increases and regulatory agenda, who sought change. The sums they raised through outside groups in 2010 and 2012 were enormous—about enough to match the overwhelming spending of the Obama campaign.
The idea that 400 wealthy families are manipulating American politics to enrich themselves and make the country more unequal is enticing. There may even be some truth to it. But the story told by theTimes is simplistic. First, it makes a certain amount of sense that right now the “concentration of donors is greatest on the Republican side,” since the Republicans are at the beginning of their most open and competitive presidential primary in memory, with 17 candidates, one of whom can draw from a more than $2 billion fortune. The Democratic primary, meanwhile, is ridiculously uncompetitive—yet the Times’s list still contains many $1 million donors to Hillary Clinton, including Soros and Herb Sandler and Steven Spielberg. Expect those big donations to grow.
Many of the most important liberal donors, such as Fed Eychaner, Tom Steyer, and James Simons, have not yet entered the outside spending game. Steyer spent $74 million in the 2014 cycle, andMichael Bloomberg spent $28 million—more than twice the amount donated by Sheldon Adelson, the biggest donor on the Republican side that cycle. Eychaner spent $10 million.
The Times notes that New York hedge fund billionaire Robert Mercer’s $11 million in contributions makes him “the top known political donor in the country so far this election cycle.” But the article contains not a single mention—not one—of the liberal Simons, who is Mercer’s business partner, andwho spent roughly the same amount as Mercer in 2014. Now, from a strategic point of view, it makes a lot of sense for a hedge fund to have stakes in both the Democratic Party and the Tea Party wing of the GOP. Indeed, such a fund would be a natural subject for an in-depth article by the campaign finance reporters of the New York Times. That article hasn’t been written.
Let it be said until the end of days: Money is necessary but not sufficient in politics, both the Republican and Democratic parties rely on wealthy donors, the motives of all of these donors is a mix of altruism and self-interest, the managerial class that rules the world is divided into right- and left-wings that struggle over control of resources and status, and one of the weapons the left wing uses to subdue the representatives of carbon energy, heavy industry, and conservative finance is “campaign finance reform,” which strengthen the hand of government, media, and labor. What’s more troubling: That rich people are engaged in politics, or that the newspaper of record isn’t telling us the whole story?
I have no clue who that guy is but just using 527's isn't going to tell you the whole story of donations, either way it is pretty moot and bogs down my overall point. Fear isn't really the right term either. You can advocate for whatever you want, but the more it is done within the political spectrum then the further and further away you get from a free market and go more towards protectionism and regulation. What says the government is too big and powerful more than the fact occupying office is an 8 billion dollar industry per election year?
This is a long interview with Peter Thiel (co-founder of PPal and early investor in Facebook/SpaceX) where he talks about his view of deceleration in innovation and science over the last 40 years in fields that don't have to do with tech/computing. The interview is long but it really is probably 1 of the best interviews I've ever listened to. Some of it is a little too heavy on technical detail but his overall point is that since the late 60s we've slowed the rate of growth in many industries with regulation, being too risk averse, change in mindset. I don't totally agree with all of his points but you can clearly see the lack of large scale innovation in some of the most important sectors (health care, education, transportation, energy, agriculture)
This interview is so rich in subject matter that I probably shouldn't be posting it in a thread about whoever the hell Jim Webb is but maybe I'll post it in another thread later on.
This is a long interview with Peter Thiel (co-founder of PPal and early investor in Facebook/SpaceX) where he talks about his view of deceleration in innovation and science over the last 40 years in fields that don't have to do with tech/computing. The interview is long but it really is probably 1 of the best interviews I've ever listened to. Some of it is a little too heavy on technical detail but his overall point is that since the late 60s we've slowed the rate of growth in many industries with regulation, being too risk averse, change in mindset. I don't totally agree with all of his points but you can clearly see the lack of large scale innovation in some of the most important sectors (health care, education, transportation, energy, agriculture)
This interview is so rich in subject matter that I probably shouldn't be posting it in a thread about whoever the hell Jim Webb is but maybe I'll post it in another thread later on.
May 07, 2015, 07:30 am[h=1]America needs a Vietnam veteran like Jim Webb for president[/h]
By H.A. Goodman, contributor
According to the Military Times, Webb's heroism in Vietnam is shown by his Navy Cross citation:
The President of the United States of America takes pleasure in presenting the Navy Cross to First Lieutenant James H. Webb, Jr., ... United States Marine Corps, for extraordinary heroism while serving as a Platoon Commander. ...
Continuing the assault, he approached a third bunker and was preparing to fire into it when the enemy threw another grenade. Observing the grenade land dangerously close to his companion, First Lieutenant Webb simultaneously fired his weapon at the enemy, pushed the Marine away from the grenade, and shielded him from the explosion with his own body. ...
By his courage, aggressive leadership, and selfless devotion to duty, First Lieutenant Webb upheld the highest traditions of the Marine Corps and of the United States Naval Service.
No, an opportunist like Karl Rove could never undermine Webb the way Republicans besmirched an honorable man like former Sen. Max Cleland (D-Ga.). Webb's selflessness in Vietnam is the reason Presidenti Reagan's secretary of Defense, Caspar Weinberger, made him secretary of the Navy and stated, "In James Webb we have a tested leader and a true American hero."
In addition to being an assistant secretary of Defense, secretary of the Navy and U.S. senator from Virginia, Webb has also written 10 books on the topics of war and foreign policy. Unlike Clinton, who was appointed secretary of State as a political gift from President Obama (Christopher Hitchens made this point in 2008 and asked, "Do we want such a person asecretary of State?"), Webb used his knowledge of foreign policy and military conflict to warn against the Iraq War. While Clinton voted to invade Iraq, the former secretary of the Navy used his knowledge of war to warn Americans of Iraq's potential to become another Vietnam.In a 2002 Washington Post op-ed headlined "Heading for Trouble: Do We Really Want to Occupy Iraq for the Next 30 Years?," Webb's prescient warnings foreshadowed a decade of dreadful counterinsurgency wars voted upon by people like Clinton:
The issue before us is not simply whether the United States should end the regime of Saddam Hussein, but whether we as a nation are prepared to physically occupy territory in the Middle East for the next 30 to 50 years. Those who are pushing for a unilateral war in Iraq know full well that there is no exit strategy if we invade and stay. ...
In Japan, American occupation forces quickly became 50,000 friends. In Iraq, they would quickly become 50,000 terrorist targets.
It's important to note that Webb's foreshadowing America's involvement in Iraq was morbidly accurate. As a result of the Iraq War, 4,490 Americans have died, 32,223 Americans have been wounded in combat, and around 500,000 veterans of Iraq suffer at least some form (post-traumatic stress disorder, for example) of injury. As for Webb's warning of becoming "terrorist targets," USA Today states that, "Somewhere between more than half to two-thirds of Americans killed or wounded in combat in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have been victims of IEDs [improvised explosive device] planted in the ground." In both Iraq and Afghanistan, IEDs have killed more than 3,000 and wounded over 33,000 Americans.
While Clinton supporters revel in her years of "experience," her tenure as our nation's top diplomat resulted the Associated Press taking the following legal action:
"After careful deliberation and exhausting our other options, The Associated Press is taking the necessary legal steps to gain access to these important documents, which will shed light on actions by the State Department and former Secretary Clinton, a presumptive 2016 presidential candidate, during some of the most significant issues of our time," said Karen Kaiser, AP's general counsel.
In addition to her failed bombing of Libya, Clinton mentioned in her recent memoir that she wanted to arm the Syrian rebels (thrusting the U.S. into the Syrian civil war) without any assurance these weapons wouldn't get into the hands of ISIS or other groups.
In terms of criminal justice reform, Webb's been talking about it for nine years while Clinton just recently mentioned the hot-button issue. After the 2008 financial collapse, Webb championed a proposed bill taxing Wall Street executive bonuses (to the horror of investment bankers), whilethree of Clinton's top five donors are Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan. Clinton has been viewed by many as currying favor with neoconservatives and Wall Street, so it's safe to say Webb poses a genuine alternative to the Democratic front-runner and a real challenge to any GOP nominee.
Finally, America needs a Vietnam veteran for president. We need a person who embodies the lessons of a generation that learned firsthand the horrors of war. America needs Jim Webb.
Goodman is an author and a journalist.
By H.A. Goodman, contributor
Greg Nash
To understand the true meaning of "experience," take a moment to compare former Sen. Jim Webb's (D-Va.) resume to the decades Hillary Clinton has amassed in public life or the manner asurname has benefited former Gov. Jeb Bush (R-Fla.). In a world where our commander in chief might be pressured to send Americans back to Iraq (40 percent of voters recently supported boots on the ground against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, or ISIS) or wage perpetual counterinsurgency wars in places most Americans can't even find on a map, Webb learned firsthand the lessons of Vietnam. Webb is a two-time Purple Heart recipient, owner of the Navy Cross and Silver Star, and his heroics in battle contrast starkly to the Bush and Clinton's complete lack of military experience. While Bush and Clinton have greatly benefited from political dynasties — as if the presidency were a crown to be passed between two families — Webb's remarkable achievements epitomize America's belief in meritocracy and sacrifice.According to the Military Times, Webb's heroism in Vietnam is shown by his Navy Cross citation:
The President of the United States of America takes pleasure in presenting the Navy Cross to First Lieutenant James H. Webb, Jr., ... United States Marine Corps, for extraordinary heroism while serving as a Platoon Commander. ...
Continuing the assault, he approached a third bunker and was preparing to fire into it when the enemy threw another grenade. Observing the grenade land dangerously close to his companion, First Lieutenant Webb simultaneously fired his weapon at the enemy, pushed the Marine away from the grenade, and shielded him from the explosion with his own body. ...
By his courage, aggressive leadership, and selfless devotion to duty, First Lieutenant Webb upheld the highest traditions of the Marine Corps and of the United States Naval Service.
No, an opportunist like Karl Rove could never undermine Webb the way Republicans besmirched an honorable man like former Sen. Max Cleland (D-Ga.). Webb's selflessness in Vietnam is the reason Presidenti Reagan's secretary of Defense, Caspar Weinberger, made him secretary of the Navy and stated, "In James Webb we have a tested leader and a true American hero."
In addition to being an assistant secretary of Defense, secretary of the Navy and U.S. senator from Virginia, Webb has also written 10 books on the topics of war and foreign policy. Unlike Clinton, who was appointed secretary of State as a political gift from President Obama (Christopher Hitchens made this point in 2008 and asked, "Do we want such a person as
The issue before us is not simply whether the United States should end the regime of Saddam Hussein, but whether we as a nation are prepared to physically occupy territory in the Middle East for the next 30 to 50 years. Those who are pushing for a unilateral war in Iraq know full well that there is no exit strategy if we invade and stay. ...
In Japan, American occupation forces quickly became 50,000 friends. In Iraq, they would quickly become 50,000 terrorist targets.
It's important to note that Webb's foreshadowing America's involvement in Iraq was morbidly accurate. As a result of the Iraq War, 4,490 Americans have died, 32,223 Americans have been wounded in combat, and around 500,000 veterans of Iraq suffer at least some form (post-traumatic stress disorder, for example) of injury. As for Webb's warning of becoming "terrorist targets," USA Today states that, "Somewhere between more than half to two-thirds of Americans killed or wounded in combat in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have been victims of IEDs [improvised explosive device] planted in the ground." In both Iraq and Afghanistan, IEDs have killed more than 3,000 and wounded over 33,000 Americans.
While Clinton supporters revel in her years of "experience," her tenure as our nation's top diplomat resulted the Associated Press taking the following legal action:
"After careful deliberation and exhausting our other options, The Associated Press is taking the necessary legal steps to gain access to these important documents, which will shed light on actions by the State Department and former Secretary Clinton, a presumptive 2016 presidential candidate, during some of the most significant issues of our time," said Karen Kaiser, AP's general counsel.
In addition to her failed bombing of Libya, Clinton mentioned in her recent memoir that she wanted to arm the Syrian rebels (thrusting the U.S. into the Syrian civil war) without any assurance these weapons wouldn't get into the hands of ISIS or other groups.
In terms of criminal justice reform, Webb's been talking about it for nine years while Clinton just recently mentioned the hot-button issue. After the 2008 financial collapse, Webb championed a proposed bill taxing Wall Street executive bonuses (to the horror of investment bankers), whilethree of Clinton's top five donors are Citigroup, Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan. Clinton has been viewed by many as currying favor with neoconservatives and Wall Street, so it's safe to say Webb poses a genuine alternative to the Democratic front-runner and a real challenge to any GOP nominee.
Finally, America needs a Vietnam veteran for president. We need a person who embodies the lessons of a generation that learned firsthand the horrors of war. America needs Jim Webb.
Goodman is an author and a journalist.
By JAKE MILLER CBS NEWS March 5, 2015, 5:32 AM
[h=1]Could Jim Webb pose a threat to Hillary Clinton in 2016?[/h]
If former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb runs for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016, he'll do so as a man with very little to lose. And for Hillary Clinton, the party's undeclared frontrunner, that could potentially be a big problem.
When Webb retired from the Senate in 2013 after only one term, many assumed his decision to forego reelection marked his exit from the political stage. He was always an outsider, never cultivating deep ties with Democratic donors and party elders during his time in Washington. And at 69 years old, he's probably not eyeing a future in electoral politics beyond 2016.
"He's always been an unnatural political animal," Webb's Senate campaign manager Steve Jarding said with a laugh. "And I don't say that pejoratively."
Play VIDEO
[h=3]Former Sen. Jim Webb "seriously looking at" a presidential run[/h]
Last November, though, Webb jumped back into the fray, surprising observers by becoming the first Democrat to take the step of forming a committee to explore a presidential bid in 2016. In his announcement video, he warned that America was at a "serious crossroads" and touted his own record of leadership.
To say that Webb would begin the 2016 race as a longshot might be considered charitable, given Clinton's early dominance. But it's clear he can't be dismissed out of hand.
A former Marine and decorated war hero, Webb was an assistant secretary of defense and secretary of the U.S. Navy before becoming a senator. He has no shortage of gravitas.
He's also aggressively opposed recent foreign military incursions and championed efforts to rein in Wall Street - both positions that could endear him to the Democratic base, which is seeking a progressive alternative to the Clinton juggernaut.
Webb is not exactly the ideal champion of the left, though. He's staked out more conservative positions on gun control, affirmative action, immigration, and environmental issues that could be problematic if he hopes to become a progressive favorite.
It is, in all, an unusual but intriguing record. And it has some wondering whether Webb could emerge as a real player in 2016.
"He brings a certain level of prestige and gravitas to the debate, a kind of working class appeal," said Jarding.
"Webb certainly passes the 'threshold of credibility' standard...He could become a serious candidate," added Tad Devine, a veteran Democratic strategist who's advising Sen. Bernie Sanders, another potential 2016 candidate.
Veteran D.C. journalist Al Hunt put it most succinctly last year: "Jim Webb could be Hillary Clinton's worst nightmare."
[h=2]The making of Jim Webb[/h]Webb was born in Missouri in 1946 to a military family that relocated frequently during his youth. He graduated from high school in Nebraska and spent a year at the University of Southern California before finishing undergrad in 1968 at the U.S. Naval Academy.
After college, Webb was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the U.S. Marine Corps and sent to Vietnam. He distinguished himself in the war, earning a Navy Cross, two Purple hearts, the Silver Star and two Bronze Stars, and he was soon promoted to first lieutenant. Due to several injuries he sustained while fighting, Webb was granted a medical retirement shortly after he returned home.
He received his law degree from Georgetown University in 1975 and soon joined the staff of the House Committee on Veteran's Affairs. In 1984, Webb was appointed Assistant Secretary of Defense under then-President Ronald Reagan, and in 1987, Reagan appointed him Secretary of the Navy. He resigned from the post in 1988 due to a dispute over the size of the Navy and spent the next few years as a filmmaker and author.
In 2006, Webb ran as a Democrat against then-Sen. George Allen, R-Virginia. He campaigned as a strong opponent of the Bush administration's war in Iraq, famously wearing the combat boots of his son, who was fighting overseas, at all of his campaign events. Allen was heavily favored to win the race at the outset, but after he came under fire for directing the slur "macaca" at a South Asian man tracking one of his events , Webb surged to victory, pulling off the most surprising Senate victories in recent memory.
"Some people called it the upset of the century," recalled Jarding. "There was no way in hell Jim Webb was going to win that race, and everybody knew it, except Jim Webb."
As senator, Webb was remembered primarily for delivering a well-received Democratic response to Mr. Bush's 2007 State of the Union address, and for his efforts to pass a 21st century G.I. bill enabling more veterans to go to college and receive job training.
Much of Webb's political persona draws on his heritage as a Scotch-Irish American with roots in Appalachia and Middle America. He's counseled Democrats not to give up on attracting the white, working-class voters who have sided against them in recent elections, and he's calibrated his message to appeal to dispossessed Americans in both rural and urban areas.
That's led him to embrace a type of economic populism, supporting efforts to tackle income inequality and rein in Wall Street. But it's also allowed him to stake out more conservative positions on cultural issues like gun control and affirmative action.
[h=2]Jim Webb on the issues[/h]Gun Control
While much of his party has supported stricter restrictions on gun ownership in America, Webb has taken a different tack by emphasizing the importance of Second Amendment rights. As a senator, he voted to allow firearms in checked baggage on Amtrak trains, he supported a measure to prohibit the provision of foreign aid to any organization seeking to impose registration or tax requirements on U.S. gun owners, and he sponsored a proposal allowing veterans to register an unlicensed gun they acquire while abroad.
In 2007, after an aide in his Senate office was arrested for trying to bring a gun into the Capitol complex, Webb distanced himself from the episode but took the opportunity to offer a rousing defense of the right to bear arms. "I believe wherever you see places where people are allowed to carry, generally the violence goes down," he said.
Affirmative Action
Webb has also distinguished himself from the rest of his party by opposing race-based affirmative action programs in the college admissions process. He's argued that the programs once helped address the legacy of institutional racism, but that they now provide a misleading read on the face of poverty in America, disadvantaging poor, white kids from rural areas. In a 2010 Wall Street Journal op-ed, Webb called for a switch from race-based programs to need-based assistance programs that would help poor students of all races.
"Those who came to this country in recent decades from Asia, Latin America and Africa did not suffer discrimination from our government, and in fact have frequently been the beneficiaries of special government programs," he wrote. "The same cannot be said of many hard-working white Americans, including those whose roots in America go back more than 200 years."
In a speech last year at the National Press Club, Webb said the experience of white Americans in downtrodden rural areas undermines the "false premise that if you are white, you by definition have begun with some kind of socioeconomic advantage."
Economic Policy
In Webb's 2007 State of the Union response, he argued that America's economic health should be measured "not with the numbers that come out of Wall Street, but with the living conditions that exist on Main Street."
That kind of economic populism has lent itself to a number of proposals to crack down on the financial services industry and promote economic opportunity and mobility. As a senator, he supported a measure to tax any bonus given to an executive at any big bank or financial firm that received government assistance during the crisis of 2008. He also pushed for a hike in capital gains taxes in 2011, arguing it would help address the growing problem of income inequality.
Foreign Policy
Webb's earlier career in the military and his work at the Defense Department spoke to a generally hawkish take on the use of American military power - he's defended the reasoning behind the U.S. war in Vietnam, for example. But since he entered the political fray in 2006, he's been a strong opponent of U.S. military interventions.
He was a vocal critic of the second Iraq war, dubbing President Bush's decision to invade in 2002 America's worst strategic blunder in recent memory. He opposed President Obama's decision to use U.S. military force to help oust Libyan dictator Moammar Qaddafi in 2011, and he's spoken out against those who advocate arming Syrian rebels to fight Islamic extremists and government thugs in that country.
"There is no such thing as the right of any President to unilaterally decide to use force in combat operations based on such vague concepts as "humanitarian intervention," Webb said in his speech at the National Press Club. "If a treaty does not obligate us, if American forces are not under attack or under threat of imminent attack, if no Americans are at risk, the president should come to the congress before he or she sends troops into harm's way."
[h=2]Why he might be a viable Clinton alternative - and why not[/h]Of the non-Clinton Democrats eyeing a bid in 2016, some believe Webb may be the most willing to attack the party's ostensible frontrunner.
Vice President Joe Biden is seen as too collegial with Clinton to attack her directly, and the same is true of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren is beloved by progressives, but she's repeatedly said she won't run in 2016. Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley is making early moves to position himself as the progressive alternative to Clinton, but there are questions about how aggressive he's willing to be - would he attack his party's likely nominee if he knew it meant sacrificing a political future beyond 2016?
That leaves Webb, a man who's rarely shied away from a political fight he deems worthwhile.
"I think he's used to the rough and tumble of politics, and I think that he's very different from Biden or Sanders, for example," Devine explained. "Part of Webb's whole appeal is going to be that he's a tough guy....I could see Webb being a tough guy on Hillary to try to prove that he'd be a tough guy on [possible 2016 GOP nominee Jeb] Bush later on."
Play VIDEO
[h=3]Hillary Clinton finds tepid support in Iowa, despite leading polls[/h]
Webb's progressive positions on economic issues and his outspoken opposition to foreign entanglements could resonate with Democratic primary voters, especially given Clinton's own close ties to Wall Street and her relatively hawkish profile on defense issues.
"The anti-war folks will love Jim, the anti-Wall Street folks will love Jim," said Jarding.
Larry Sabato, a political science professor at the University of Virginia, said Webb "could use both issues to some effect should he run."
"A sizable minority of Democrats has not yet cast its lot with Clinton, and some will vote for a credible opponent in the primaries and caucuses," Sabato said. "Jim Webb has a distinguished record, including a Senate term, so he qualifies."
The problem, though, is that Webb's stated beliefs don't always place him to Clinton's left: he's more of ideological hodge-podge than a progressive champion. To court the left, he'd need to explain some conservative positions on cultural issues, along with some of his earlier hawkish views on foreign policy.
"If you're going to challenge Clinton, you have to do it from the left, not the center," said Devine. "Webb certainly has a lot of populist appeal, but if you look at his record, going back to service in the Reagan administration, he's got a lot of positions on issues...and things he's said in the past that will position him to Clinton's right."
"When you get Jim Webb, you get Jim Webb. You get the polish, you get the warts, but this is not a guy who's going to take the easy path to electoral politics," Jarding said. "I don't think he's going to necessarily going to compromise at levels that a lot of folks would like him to compromise."
On a more mechanical level, it's not clear Webb (or any Democrat) will be able to raise the funds needed to mount a serious bid, given Clinton's forbidding early dominance.
"The biggest and toughest benchmark for him is going to be -- can he put together the resources to run a national campaign?" Devine said. "I don't think there's any doubt that he has credibility in terms of his substance."
"He wasn't the best campaigner, he detested fundraising," admitted Jarding. " A lot of candidates find campaigning very taxing, they hate to raise money, and they just won't admit it. But he did."
As he considers his strategy going forward, Webb has been decidedly coy about criticizing Clinton thus far. He told a radio interviewer during a visit to Iowa last August, for example, that it would "take up the whole show" for him to critique Clinton's record as secretary of state.
"I think there's time to have that discussion later," he added, winking at the likelihood of fireworks to come.
[h=1]Could Jim Webb pose a threat to Hillary Clinton in 2016?[/h]
- 70 Comments
- Shares
- Tweets
- Stumble
- More +
If former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb runs for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2016, he'll do so as a man with very little to lose. And for Hillary Clinton, the party's undeclared frontrunner, that could potentially be a big problem.
When Webb retired from the Senate in 2013 after only one term, many assumed his decision to forego reelection marked his exit from the political stage. He was always an outsider, never cultivating deep ties with Democratic donors and party elders during his time in Washington. And at 69 years old, he's probably not eyeing a future in electoral politics beyond 2016.
"He's always been an unnatural political animal," Webb's Senate campaign manager Steve Jarding said with a laugh. "And I don't say that pejoratively."
Play VIDEO[h=3]Former Sen. Jim Webb "seriously looking at" a presidential run[/h]
Last November, though, Webb jumped back into the fray, surprising observers by becoming the first Democrat to take the step of forming a committee to explore a presidential bid in 2016. In his announcement video, he warned that America was at a "serious crossroads" and touted his own record of leadership.
To say that Webb would begin the 2016 race as a longshot might be considered charitable, given Clinton's early dominance. But it's clear he can't be dismissed out of hand.
A former Marine and decorated war hero, Webb was an assistant secretary of defense and secretary of the U.S. Navy before becoming a senator. He has no shortage of gravitas.
He's also aggressively opposed recent foreign military incursions and championed efforts to rein in Wall Street - both positions that could endear him to the Democratic base, which is seeking a progressive alternative to the Clinton juggernaut.
Webb is not exactly the ideal champion of the left, though. He's staked out more conservative positions on gun control, affirmative action, immigration, and environmental issues that could be problematic if he hopes to become a progressive favorite.
It is, in all, an unusual but intriguing record. And it has some wondering whether Webb could emerge as a real player in 2016.
"He brings a certain level of prestige and gravitas to the debate, a kind of working class appeal," said Jarding.
"Webb certainly passes the 'threshold of credibility' standard...He could become a serious candidate," added Tad Devine, a veteran Democratic strategist who's advising Sen. Bernie Sanders, another potential 2016 candidate.
Veteran D.C. journalist Al Hunt put it most succinctly last year: "Jim Webb could be Hillary Clinton's worst nightmare."
[h=2]The making of Jim Webb[/h]Webb was born in Missouri in 1946 to a military family that relocated frequently during his youth. He graduated from high school in Nebraska and spent a year at the University of Southern California before finishing undergrad in 1968 at the U.S. Naval Academy.
After college, Webb was commissioned as a second lieutenant in the U.S. Marine Corps and sent to Vietnam. He distinguished himself in the war, earning a Navy Cross, two Purple hearts, the Silver Star and two Bronze Stars, and he was soon promoted to first lieutenant. Due to several injuries he sustained while fighting, Webb was granted a medical retirement shortly after he returned home.
He received his law degree from Georgetown University in 1975 and soon joined the staff of the House Committee on Veteran's Affairs. In 1984, Webb was appointed Assistant Secretary of Defense under then-President Ronald Reagan, and in 1987, Reagan appointed him Secretary of the Navy. He resigned from the post in 1988 due to a dispute over the size of the Navy and spent the next few years as a filmmaker and author.
In 2006, Webb ran as a Democrat against then-Sen. George Allen, R-Virginia. He campaigned as a strong opponent of the Bush administration's war in Iraq, famously wearing the combat boots of his son, who was fighting overseas, at all of his campaign events. Allen was heavily favored to win the race at the outset, but after he came under fire for directing the slur "macaca" at a South Asian man tracking one of his events , Webb surged to victory, pulling off the most surprising Senate victories in recent memory.
"Some people called it the upset of the century," recalled Jarding. "There was no way in hell Jim Webb was going to win that race, and everybody knew it, except Jim Webb."
As senator, Webb was remembered primarily for delivering a well-received Democratic response to Mr. Bush's 2007 State of the Union address, and for his efforts to pass a 21st century G.I. bill enabling more veterans to go to college and receive job training.
Much of Webb's political persona draws on his heritage as a Scotch-Irish American with roots in Appalachia and Middle America. He's counseled Democrats not to give up on attracting the white, working-class voters who have sided against them in recent elections, and he's calibrated his message to appeal to dispossessed Americans in both rural and urban areas.
That's led him to embrace a type of economic populism, supporting efforts to tackle income inequality and rein in Wall Street. But it's also allowed him to stake out more conservative positions on cultural issues like gun control and affirmative action.
[h=2]Jim Webb on the issues[/h]Gun Control
While much of his party has supported stricter restrictions on gun ownership in America, Webb has taken a different tack by emphasizing the importance of Second Amendment rights. As a senator, he voted to allow firearms in checked baggage on Amtrak trains, he supported a measure to prohibit the provision of foreign aid to any organization seeking to impose registration or tax requirements on U.S. gun owners, and he sponsored a proposal allowing veterans to register an unlicensed gun they acquire while abroad.
In 2007, after an aide in his Senate office was arrested for trying to bring a gun into the Capitol complex, Webb distanced himself from the episode but took the opportunity to offer a rousing defense of the right to bear arms. "I believe wherever you see places where people are allowed to carry, generally the violence goes down," he said.
Affirmative Action
Webb has also distinguished himself from the rest of his party by opposing race-based affirmative action programs in the college admissions process. He's argued that the programs once helped address the legacy of institutional racism, but that they now provide a misleading read on the face of poverty in America, disadvantaging poor, white kids from rural areas. In a 2010 Wall Street Journal op-ed, Webb called for a switch from race-based programs to need-based assistance programs that would help poor students of all races.
"Those who came to this country in recent decades from Asia, Latin America and Africa did not suffer discrimination from our government, and in fact have frequently been the beneficiaries of special government programs," he wrote. "The same cannot be said of many hard-working white Americans, including those whose roots in America go back more than 200 years."
In a speech last year at the National Press Club, Webb said the experience of white Americans in downtrodden rural areas undermines the "false premise that if you are white, you by definition have begun with some kind of socioeconomic advantage."
Economic Policy
In Webb's 2007 State of the Union response, he argued that America's economic health should be measured "not with the numbers that come out of Wall Street, but with the living conditions that exist on Main Street."
That kind of economic populism has lent itself to a number of proposals to crack down on the financial services industry and promote economic opportunity and mobility. As a senator, he supported a measure to tax any bonus given to an executive at any big bank or financial firm that received government assistance during the crisis of 2008. He also pushed for a hike in capital gains taxes in 2011, arguing it would help address the growing problem of income inequality.
Foreign Policy
Webb's earlier career in the military and his work at the Defense Department spoke to a generally hawkish take on the use of American military power - he's defended the reasoning behind the U.S. war in Vietnam, for example. But since he entered the political fray in 2006, he's been a strong opponent of U.S. military interventions.
He was a vocal critic of the second Iraq war, dubbing President Bush's decision to invade in 2002 America's worst strategic blunder in recent memory. He opposed President Obama's decision to use U.S. military force to help oust Libyan dictator Moammar Qaddafi in 2011, and he's spoken out against those who advocate arming Syrian rebels to fight Islamic extremists and government thugs in that country.
"There is no such thing as the right of any President to unilaterally decide to use force in combat operations based on such vague concepts as "humanitarian intervention," Webb said in his speech at the National Press Club. "If a treaty does not obligate us, if American forces are not under attack or under threat of imminent attack, if no Americans are at risk, the president should come to the congress before he or she sends troops into harm's way."
[h=2]Why he might be a viable Clinton alternative - and why not[/h]Of the non-Clinton Democrats eyeing a bid in 2016, some believe Webb may be the most willing to attack the party's ostensible frontrunner.
Vice President Joe Biden is seen as too collegial with Clinton to attack her directly, and the same is true of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren is beloved by progressives, but she's repeatedly said she won't run in 2016. Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley is making early moves to position himself as the progressive alternative to Clinton, but there are questions about how aggressive he's willing to be - would he attack his party's likely nominee if he knew it meant sacrificing a political future beyond 2016?
That leaves Webb, a man who's rarely shied away from a political fight he deems worthwhile.
"I think he's used to the rough and tumble of politics, and I think that he's very different from Biden or Sanders, for example," Devine explained. "Part of Webb's whole appeal is going to be that he's a tough guy....I could see Webb being a tough guy on Hillary to try to prove that he'd be a tough guy on [possible 2016 GOP nominee Jeb] Bush later on."
Play VIDEO[h=3]Hillary Clinton finds tepid support in Iowa, despite leading polls[/h]
Webb's progressive positions on economic issues and his outspoken opposition to foreign entanglements could resonate with Democratic primary voters, especially given Clinton's own close ties to Wall Street and her relatively hawkish profile on defense issues.
"The anti-war folks will love Jim, the anti-Wall Street folks will love Jim," said Jarding.
Larry Sabato, a political science professor at the University of Virginia, said Webb "could use both issues to some effect should he run."
"A sizable minority of Democrats has not yet cast its lot with Clinton, and some will vote for a credible opponent in the primaries and caucuses," Sabato said. "Jim Webb has a distinguished record, including a Senate term, so he qualifies."
The problem, though, is that Webb's stated beliefs don't always place him to Clinton's left: he's more of ideological hodge-podge than a progressive champion. To court the left, he'd need to explain some conservative positions on cultural issues, along with some of his earlier hawkish views on foreign policy.
"If you're going to challenge Clinton, you have to do it from the left, not the center," said Devine. "Webb certainly has a lot of populist appeal, but if you look at his record, going back to service in the Reagan administration, he's got a lot of positions on issues...and things he's said in the past that will position him to Clinton's right."
"When you get Jim Webb, you get Jim Webb. You get the polish, you get the warts, but this is not a guy who's going to take the easy path to electoral politics," Jarding said. "I don't think he's going to necessarily going to compromise at levels that a lot of folks would like him to compromise."
On a more mechanical level, it's not clear Webb (or any Democrat) will be able to raise the funds needed to mount a serious bid, given Clinton's forbidding early dominance.
"The biggest and toughest benchmark for him is going to be -- can he put together the resources to run a national campaign?" Devine said. "I don't think there's any doubt that he has credibility in terms of his substance."
"He wasn't the best campaigner, he detested fundraising," admitted Jarding. " A lot of candidates find campaigning very taxing, they hate to raise money, and they just won't admit it. But he did."
As he considers his strategy going forward, Webb has been decidedly coy about criticizing Clinton thus far. He told a radio interviewer during a visit to Iowa last August, for example, that it would "take up the whole show" for him to critique Clinton's record as secretary of state.
"I think there's time to have that discussion later," he added, winking at the likelihood of fireworks to come.
Webb is a good man. Like Obama, he was one of the earliest critics against Bush's idiocy going into Iraq, and he would not take us into a War lightly. He's all for taxing the rich heavily. I'd vote for him over any R but Kasich, and certainly over Hilary. He has no shot whatsoever, relegated to the Chafee, O'Malley point of irrelevancy. Of course, as usual down here, Vit is correct. When/if Bernie or Webb became a realistic alternative to Hillary, suddenly Rusty's dot connecting Right Wing Website fetish would be unleashed on them.
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/James_Webb.htm
http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/James_Webb.htm
