Rich dude bankrolls Bush defeat

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Defeat of Bush is financier's latest project

By Laura Blumenfeld
The Washington Post

NEW YORK — "George Soros, one of the richest men in the world, has given away nearly $5 billion to promote democracy in the former Soviet bloc, Africa and Asia. Now he has a new project: defeating President Bush."

...

― donut bitch (donut), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 18:24 (twenty-two years ago)

In spite of Mr Soros having made a large part of his money by trying to bankrupt Britain you've got to love what he spends it on.

― Ed (dali), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 18:27 (twenty-two years ago)

The Republican National Committee says that "it's incredibly ironic that George Soros is trying to create a more open society by using an unregulated, under-the-radar-screen, shadowy, soft-money group to do it."

This is presumably less honorable than using unregulated, under-the-radar-screen, shadowy, soft-money groups to to create a more CLOSED and VINDICTIVE society.

― Tracer Hand (tracerhand), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 18:30 (twenty-two years ago)

Go rich dude!

― cybele (cybele), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 18:32 (twenty-two years ago)

didn't bush work for soros at one point? (before he wz in politics)

i may have got this wrong, i just vaguely remember that a company bush "ran" wz owned by soros

― mark s (mark s), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 18:34 (twenty-two years ago)

It's funny, I was trying to do the same thing, only with my $300 chequing account.

― Huckleberry Mann (Horace Mann), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 18:36 (twenty-two years ago)

Interesting. I hadn't heard of the Bush-Spectrum 7-Harken-Soros connection before. It's detailed here.

Excerpt:
What was the deal with Harken buying up Spectrum 7? I inquired. Did Soros know Bush back then?

"I didn't know him," Soros replied. "He was supposed to bring in the Gulf connection. But it didn't come to anything. We were buying political influence. That was it. He was not much of a businessman."

― o. nate (onate), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 18:40 (twenty-two years ago)

haha yes that's exactly the story i remember o-nate!

― mark s (mark s), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 18:42 (twenty-two years ago)

or misremember to be exact

― mark s (mark s), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 18:42 (twenty-two years ago)

Didn't Soros go all anti-capitalist after he bet his money against it (capitalism) in Russia and got burned?

― bnw (bnw), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 18:47 (twenty-two years ago)

I don't know where you heard that, but Soros is not anti-capitalist by any definition of the term. He's still a very active capitalist.

― o. nate (onate), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 18:50 (twenty-two years ago)

soros is capitalist in the best 19th Liberal tradition i,e. if the world is a better place more people will be able to buy my stuff. He is the merchant banking Henry Ford. He promotes the thinks that he thinks are good for capitalism.

― Ed (dali), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 18:54 (twenty-two years ago)

what "stuff" of his can you buy?

― mark s (mark s), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 18:54 (twenty-two years ago)

You know, things.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 18:55 (twenty-two years ago)

well his books i guess but is that what you mean?

― mark s (mark s), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 18:55 (twenty-two years ago)

I bet you can buy his nutz.

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 18:56 (twenty-two years ago)

It's better put 'Money makes the world go round so if everyone has loads he can cream off more for himself' (for money read wealth)

― Ed (dali), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 18:57 (twenty-two years ago)

"Soros said he had been waking in the middle of the night, his thoughts shaking him "like an alarm clock." He wrote down his ideas, longhand."

the fact that he wrote his ideas down in longhand seems like an odd thing to mention...
anyway,whatever this guys motives,fair balls to him on this particular issue,hopefully he'll have some success...

― robin (robin), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 18:57 (twenty-two years ago)

George Soros is the craziest fucking man in the world, do you know how much money he's invested in the company I work for?? A LOT. The man is totally shitcakes insane, that's all I gotta say. We ended up attempting to buy out his interest and he was all pissed about it, I'm like WE'RE LOSING $50M A YEAR WTF!!! I have this image in my head that Soros just sits in his house on top of a big pile of money, wearing a silvery gown, rolling g-notes into cigar-like rolls and smoking them. While Liam Neeson sits in the fucking setee, drinking a big huge tumbler of sherry.

― Allyzay, Wednesday, 12 November 2003 19:03 (twenty-two years ago)

But dude hey, if it means no President MAD Magazine then ok by me. Get on with your crazy ass self, Georgie S.!

― Allyzay, Wednesday, 12 November 2003 19:04 (twenty-two years ago)

This is a little like the Perot candidacy, but with a striking difference. In each case, we have a very rich man (Soros, being very, VERY rich) trying to influence the outcome of the presidency. In Perot's case, however, he was running himself. As it turns out he was a nut and didn't get elected. It also turns out that he got rich, to a large degree, via gov't contracts, etc., although, he's still doing okay. Soros, however, is giving money to other candidates, i.e., the dems, to help them beat Bush. He's not running himself. This is the problem. Of course, if he too, as Ally says, is a nut, it's Perot all over again. Maybe he recognizes this and is using the DNC as his avatar. But back to the problem. The problems is with all the democratic candidates. They're collosal duds like all the republicans. Soros has done something significant, i.e. made a brazilian dollars. He should be running. But I guess he wasn't born in the US and therefore can't. Nonetheless, someone who's actually good at something should be president. Some one who's accomplished something and who can't be bought. It's all horrendous. Unless he buys votes kennedy style, his money won't matter if Bush is popular and Dick Gephardt or some other limp dishrag is running against him.

― Skottie, Wednesday, 12 November 2003 20:52 (twenty-two years ago)

Unless Soros has enough money to say "Hey, if you vote against Bush, I'll give every U.S. Citizen $100,000" or some shit like that. I mean, it's petty, but again, how low will you go to avoid a two-terming Alfred E. Neuman?

― donut bitch (donut), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 20:55 (twenty-two years ago)

why are all the democratic candidates "collosal duds"?

― cinniblount (James Blount), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 20:55 (twenty-two years ago)

Because IMHO all career politicians (and soldiers) are collosal duds. I realize that rhetorically we have to trace the logic back to this premise which is just opinion and arguable. But most of them are collosal duds in fact, cf gephart, or joke candidates, see sharpton, but I don't know much about them anyway, so don't listen to me, not that that is usually an issue either...

― Skottie, Wednesday, 12 November 2003 21:14 (twenty-two years ago)

What I mean is, come on, eccentric rich dude, run yourself! It's the Arnold S. pitfall, I realize.

― Skottie, Wednesday, 12 November 2003 21:16 (twenty-two years ago)

I like DB's illegal scheme because I could use the dough.

― Dan Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 21:17 (twenty-two years ago)

all career politicians (and soldiers) are collosal duds - ts: paul wellstone (career politician) vs. george w. bush (rich dude)

― cinniblount (James Blount), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 21:18 (twenty-two years ago)

I mean, "colossal" of course. I'm a terrible speller in allen Sprachen. But Bush was a governor and never a successful biz man. He bankrupted all his companies.

― Skottie, Wednesday, 12 November 2003 21:19 (twenty-two years ago)

he was governor for how long?

― cinniblount (James Blount), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 21:21 (twenty-two years ago)

he also didn't bankrupt all his companies

― cinniblount (James Blount), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 21:21 (twenty-two years ago)

Not part. long, you're right. But he wasn't rich because he did anything himself, that's what I mean.

Re: lackluster Dems: in Bush vs. Gore, please, was Al Gore the best anyone could come up with? There should have been such a wide margin of victory over Bush that a few hundred hanging chads were lost in the rounding.

― Skottie, Wednesday, 12 November 2003 21:22 (twenty-two years ago)

name a democratic slate from the past thirty years stronger than the current one

― cinniblount (James Blount), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 21:24 (twenty-two years ago)

you've just lost your argument!

― Skottie, Wednesday, 12 November 2003 21:25 (twenty-two years ago)

how so?

― cinniblount (James Blount), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 21:25 (twenty-two years ago)

That's the problem. They're all weak.

― Skottie, Wednesday, 12 November 2003 21:26 (twenty-two years ago)

But I'm in over my head, I don't like politics. I don't know enough to argue sensibly. I'll shut up. I'm not a democrat. I'm not a republican. I've only voted for president once (and I've had several opportunities) and then it was for the libertarian candidate--a vain gesture.

But if you want to talk about Sonny & Cher albums, I'm ready!

― Skottie, Wednesday, 12 November 2003 21:28 (twenty-two years ago)

I mean people whine 'gee the democrats are so weak' and then you ask them how so and all you get is 'um, I just don't like politicians' and next thing you know you've recalled a governor and replaced him with a movie star or elected a cokehead fratboy president. lazy uninquisitive cynicism only works to serve the right's ends.

― cinniblount (James Blount), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 21:29 (twenty-two years ago)

I think the main problem that Democrats have is not that their slate is particularly weak, but rather that since Sept. 11 national security has again become the top issue in the minds of many voters (which had not been true since the end of the Cold War) - and voters have historically trusted Republican candidates more than Democrats when it comes to national security issues. This is also why I think a candidate like Wesley Clark is perhaps best positioned to take on Bush.

― o. nate (onate), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 21:30 (twenty-two years ago)

o . nate otm. The Dems challenge is to explain how some Bush (and carried over Clinton) policies are actually making the country less safe.

― bnw (bnw), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 21:35 (twenty-two years ago)

I said it before and I'll say it again: they shoulda hammered the phrase 'winning the peace' into the American public's mind back in spring and they should've spent this fall hammering the name "Valerie Plame" into the national conciousness

― cinniblount (James Blount), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 21:37 (twenty-two years ago)

You're right in a way, blount, but it is irrelevant to the issue of whether the dems are weak or not. Yeah, I'm cynical, but they're still weak. I think nate is correct--that's concrete. Also, the dems have in since Carter been reacting to the republicans. Exception: Clinton--whoops, he won! We hate Reagan, vote for us! That wasn't going to beat Bush I. Esp. since Reagan was/is one of America's best loved presidents. Probab. not to the posters on this board, but statistically. American voters don't respond to a spectrum of issues, rather to one or two key points---beat the commies, lower taxes! Reagan wins twice.

Now I'm stopping. again.

― Skottie, Wednesday, 12 November 2003 21:37 (twenty-two years ago)

clinton didn't 'react to the republicans'? I'm pretty sure the 92 election was all 'time for change ie. get rid of bush' and he made the 96 election a referendum on newt while the gop was still in the primaries.

― cinniblount (James Blount), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 21:41 (twenty-two years ago)

and how is 'the democrats are weak' "concrete"????

― cinniblount (James Blount), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 21:42 (twenty-two years ago)

huh? I mean nate was correct and that his statement was a concrete comment on the situation not at all cynical. jeez, sorry to be so unclear.

― Skottie, Wednesday, 12 November 2003 21:51 (twenty-two years ago)

If the leak isn't found by Spring, the Dems should be screaming to subpoena Novak.

― bnw (bnw), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 22:01 (twenty-two years ago)

lazy uninquisitive cynicism only works to serve the right's ends.

May I just say Blount OTM! (I owe him a coupla those).

― Momus (Momus), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 22:12 (twenty-two years ago)

I've met a lot of liberals by default though, and they are just a little less annoying.

― bnw (bnw), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 22:15 (twenty-two years ago)

*Cabinet Meeting*

GWB: Alright. Who did it. I goddam want to know who put Plame's name out there as CIA. You know I ran on bringing honor and responsibility to the White House. Slick Willie mighta just wanted to finger some intern, but we all know the American public deserve better than that. Come forward and tell me what you know about this, I want the names of the people involved on my desk, and their desks empty tonight.

they are just a little less annoying.
True!

BWAAAAAAAAHHAHHAAAAHAHAAA! *room erupts*

OK,whoooooooeee...heheh. Good one, Karl, what's the next item?"

― Hunter (Hunter), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 22:18 (twenty-two years ago)

close

― Hunter (Hunter), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 22:18 (twenty-two years ago)

Also, I'm drunk. See ya tomorrow.

― Hunter (Hunter), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 22:19 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm pretty sure the 92 election was all 'time for change ie. get rid of bush'

Wasn't it all 'Putting People First' and leaving the 'time for change' part to the iconography (Kennebunkport/Checkout scanners v. Fleetwood Mac/hairbands/Stephanopoulos)? Which supports the we-need-a-positive-message argument. (But I think we already have one.)

― gabbneb (gabbneb), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 22:48 (twenty-two years ago)

HAHAHA. I just remember that Soul Asylum played at the MTV Inagural Ball! What a year!

― Jay Dee Sah Mon (Kingfish), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 22:53 (twenty-two years ago)

GS: "see the current global financial arrangement is sorta kinda wack cz it allows someone like ME to do something like THIS"
*does way irresponsible stuff w.markets which pisses off all other ppl w.money*
defender of cap'm #1: "the system is good because it won't let you do that oh wait"
defender of cap'm #2: "the system is good because it won't matter if you do that oh wait"
defender of cap'm #3: "INVISIBLE HAND oh wait"
*#1 #2 and #3 then all get squished by a v.visible foot*

― mark s (mark s), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 23:05 (twenty-two years ago)

v. visible AND BIG foot.

― Julio Desouza (jdesouza), Wednesday, 12 November 2003 23:46 (twenty-two years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.