The most admired Dems of the 20th century were *much* more 1%-connected

[DanTex]

than Hillary.

Yes, I'm talking about FDR and JFK.

FDR: aristocratic upbringing, fancy prep school, first job out of law school was as a Wall St lawyer, and his cousin was president.

JFK: father, whose money and influence propelled his political career, was a billionaire several times over in 2015 dollars, and made his first fortune speculating on stocks in the 20s (and was, err, "savvy" enough to make even more money shorting when the market crashed). Makes even FDR look like a Horatio Alger story.


So let's be serious. Speeches at Goldman Sachs? Really?

[whatchamacallit]

1. It's not the circumstances of their birth, it's the direction of their leadership

HRC will never be an FDR or JFK.

[LanternWaste]

4. Hence, no one has pointed to the market value of her speeches and rather, focused on the their conte

Hence, no one has pointed to the market value of her speeches and rather, focused on the their contents?

[whatchamacallit]

11. Not sure what you're asking

Could you rephrase?

[LanternWaste]

17. Are we to presume then that the money she charges for speeches are not an issue...?

Are we to presume then that the money she charges for speeches are not an issue...?

[whatchamacallit]

20. I'm not sure why you should presume that

And I'm not sure what her speaking fees have to do with my answer to the OP.

[orpupilofnature57]

57. Not only an issue , it's who she is .

[orpupilofnature57]

6. + 1OOO Them and Teddy saw trough the facade,, many of the middle class

are so taken in by and do Anything to attain, actually I'm talking about the Bush family and the Clinton's members of the 10% that work for the 1% .

[villager]

79. Exactly. Hence, a coup planned against FDR, and an assassination carried out against JFK

n/t

[pnwmom]

96. JFK was not an FDR. He was a moderate. In some ways, a conservative.

http://ideas.time.com/2013/10/14/jfk-was-a-political-conservative/

Far from being a big-spending liberal, Kennedy was a conservative by the standards of both his time and today. While he increased military spending, overall he restrained federal outlays. His plan for economic growth emphasized not deficits but tax-rate cuts that he argued would eventually pay for themselves by increasing government revenue. He reduced tariffs in pursuit of free trade, and he took a hard line against communism abroad and at home.

In more candid and private moments, Kennedy’s closest aides have acknowledged as much. At one closed-door Boston gathering of Camelot veterans, Theodore Sorensen said, “Kennedy was a fiscal conservative. Most of us and the press and historians have, for one reason or another, treated Kennedy as being much more liberal than he so regarded himself at the time … in fiscal matters, he was extremely conservative, very cautious about the size of the budget.”

What accounts for the misunderstanding? Part of it was wishful thinking by some of Kennedy’s more liberal aides.

Sorensen himself fueled this myth in his 1988 book Counselor, in which he claimed, “In his foreign policy speeches, JFK stayed out of the terminology trap, the common tendency to label groups with names that put them beyond the pale of negotiation, such as communist, or enemy, or evil.” That’s inaccurate. At Assumption College in 1955, Kennedy spoke of the Cold War in terms of “good vs. evil, right vs. wrong.” At the Mormon Tabernacle in 1960, Kennedy said, “The enemy is the communist system itself — implacable, insatiable, unceasing in its drive for world domination.” And in Berlin in 1963, Kennedy said, “There are some who say in Europe and elsewhere we can work with the communists. Let them come to Berlin.”

It’s not only Kennedy’s speeches that define him as a conservative, but also his actions in office. Kennedy had run in 1960 to the right of Richard Nixon on Cuba; as Nixon recalled it in his memoir, after their first televised presidential debate, “Kennedy conveyed the image — to 60 million people — that he was tougher on Castro and communism than I was.” In the Cuban missile crisis, Kennedy ordered a blockade, disregarding the advice of more dovish advisers such as McGeorge Bundy, Adlai Stevenson and Robert Lovett.

SNIP

[LeftOfWest]

98. Ira Stoll is a right wing Conservative Liar. Salon article about JFK/right wings favorite LIE.

http://www.salon.com/2013/11/03/stop_calling_jfk_conservative_the_rights_favorite_new_lie_is_filled_with_historical_flaws/

"Stop calling JFK conservative: The right’s favorite new lie is filled with historical flaws"



The right's embrace of JFK is filled with historical flaws on taxes and abortion -- and ignores his real record. Never mind what Kennedy himself said, however.

Being a conservative, Ira Stoll is sure he knows better, although Daniel Larison at the American Conservative disagrees — “No, J.F.K. Wasn’t a Conservative,” his response is titled, as if Kennedy himself hadn’t made it clear enough."

about Ira Stoll:

"Instead of a coherent argument, we’re treated to an arbitrary hodgepodge that comes across like a bit from “SNL” or Comedy Central. We get claims ranging from downright false (“He pioneered supply side tax cuts,” um, no — his were Keynesian, demand-side cuts), to misleading (his welfare reform went in a more liberal direction), to irrelevant (“He was religious”), to bizarre — a precognition-based argument about one Supreme Court dissenting opinion a decade after his death. Individually, each claim is ludicrous on its face. Stoll’s only hope is to keep them constantly in motion, as in a game of three-card monte."




Ira Stoll is a right wing lying Conservative.


Shame these right wing conservative lies are being spewed here.

[pnwmom]

99. What specific issues in that article were wrong? Did he not increase military spending?

Did he not push through tax cuts?

[LeftOfWest]

100. I agree with Salon Ira Stoll is a Conservative LIAR.

Pushing the right wing lie that JFK was a Conservative.

"STOP CALLING JFK CONSERVATIVE."

I agree with Salon on that.

Ira Stoll, Conservative Liar who is spreading right wing lies.

Why are YOU pushing Conservative LIAR Ira Stoll.

Disgusting.

Why do you believe the right wing Conservative's lies about JFK and his framing of those lies?

[pnwmom]

101. Did he not increase military spending? Did he not push for tax cuts?

Those are conservative, not liberal, positions.

I said JFK was a moderate. In some ways he was liberal and in other ways he wasn't. It was Johnson who pushed through The Great Society. If JFK had such plans, he didn't have time to achieve them.

[truebluegreen]

103. Did not push through tax cuts, LBJ signed that law.

And FYI, while the tax rate went down, tax revenue went up, because of closed loopholes. Conservatives (ahem) always leave that part out.

[Wilms]

2. Nice try, Dan.

The record is the issue. So let's be serious.

[whatchamacallit]

7. Seriousness is rarely modus operandi for a particular group

It's usually a never-ending bag of tricks.

[DanTex]

10. Her record is one of fighting for progressive causes.

So, no, that's obviously not the issue.

[Wilms]

13. Then we're just a bunch of loons

screaming Benghazi!1!! and pantsuit?

Um, no.

Bankers wanted to kill FDR, not fund his campaign.

[DanTex]

18. Not sure about that, but her record is definitely one of fighting for

progressive causes.

[Wilms]

41. It's the bank thing.

It's the foreign policy thing.

What's so hard for Hillary supporters to understand? Saying good things about about gender-equality and LGBT issues, while aiming to blow up the world and impoverish us here is NOT progressiveness. It's window dressing.

[DanTex]

47. Aiming to blow up the world and impoverish us? Uhh, what?

You actually think she is "aiming to impoverish" Americans? Like, that's her goal, she wakes up and thinks, gee, how can I make people poorer.

Hmm.

[Wilms]

51. No. She wakes up and CALCULATES

how she can suck up to Wall Street. THAT impoverishes a few of us.

Iraq vote alone. Anyone who didn't think that would set the ME on fire is a liar or an idiot or both.

Bernie did not vote for that.

Are you done making like you don't get it??

[DanTex]

55. That is insanely conspiratorial. What makes you think she's sucking up,

or even more, "calculating" how to suck up?

Yeah, the Iraq War vote was a mistake. No question about it. Like, you know, the Bay of Pigs, or Vietnam (which, granted, was mostly that other great liberal hero, LBJ).

[Wilms]

58. Ohhhh. I'm a "conspiracy theorist" now

I'm going to tell mommy you said that.

Meanwhile, "a mistake". LOL. How about "irresponsible"? OK? So instead of charging her, and all those that voted along, with murder, let's charge them with manslaughter.

[DanTex]

59. Well, yes. If you think she spends her time calculating how to suck up to billionaires,

that's conspiratorial.

Wait, you think everyone in congress who voted for the IWR should face criminal charges? This keeps getting more interesting.

[Wilms]

82. In and of itself, no.

A conspiracy involves two or more people. But a lot of folks don't know that, wrapped up as they are with the CIA's creation of the term "conspiracy theorist".

Look that up.

[Divernan]

86. HRC seeking 20 new donors of $5 to $10 million each.

Just last Friday, she was in a Florida mansion charging a minimum of $2,700 per head for the pleasure of her company. So no pesky reporters taking notes on whatever she promised her donors in exchange for their support. But pity the fools who thought they'd get personal consideration for a measly $2,700.

As documented below, the Clinton campaign's goal is to get 20 new donors of $5 to $10 million each. Now THAT is how you get some input on selection of Supreme Court Justice nominations.

May 29/day-before-yesterday:
http://www.clickorlando.com/news/hillary-clinton-to-attend-central-florida-fundraiser/33281818

Presidential candidate and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will be in Central Florida on Friday.

Clinton is attending a fundraising event at the home of prominent Orlando attorney John Morgan. The event takes place at Morgan's Heathrow mansion.

According to the Orlando Sentinel, the minimum donation for attendance is $2,700 to Clinton's campaign fund, which is the maximum allowable under federal law per election.

And HRC is not doing well with raising the record amount she believes is the path to the presidency. This same report was carried in the New York Times today as well.

http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/democrats-need-richer-donor-list-to-keep-up-with-

"Ickes, who is a Priorities USA board member, and other Clinton supporters are discussing how to raise up to $300?million for Democratic outside groups. That is almost twice as much as Democratic super PACs and other outside groups spent to help re-elect President Obama in 2012, when conservative super PACs far outspent liberal ones.

This ambitious goal will require the emergence of a new class of at least 20 Democratic donors who can give $5?million or even $10?million each. Ickes said recruiting them would not be easy. “Our side isn’t used to being asked for that kind of money,” Ickes said. “If you asked them to put up $100?million for a hospital wing, they’d be the first in line.”

The hurdles begin with the candidate. While Clinton has committed to meeting with potential super PAC donors, people close to her say she has not dealt with the kind of big-donor courting that has framed the early months of the Republican race.

Clinton also faces a perception that neither she nor her husband, former President Bill Clinton, is lacking cash. Together, they earned at least $30?million in the past 16 months. And Bill Clinton’s aggressive courting of donors, in the White House and now as head of the Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation, has been an enduring source of controversy.

The article points out that the Conservative PACs far outspent Obama, but still lost to him. Golly, gee whiz, boys and girls, is it just possible that HRC learned nothing from that fact? She & Bill are so fixated on socking away vast amounts of money and the life styles such cash affords them, that they do not understand that $$$$ are not necessarily the winning path to the Oval Office.

[DanTex]

89. That's what it's going to take to beat the GOP, unfortunately.

Obama and his team understood this. Hopefully wealthy liberals in the tradition of FDR and JFK will step up to the plate. I think she'll be able to raise a lot, leveraging the donor base that Obama built.

[Katashi_itto]

102. Every friggin move she makes is to pander.

If Bernie wasn't in the race we wouldn't hear anything progressive at all. Once Bernie drops she will drop any pretense at progressive ideals.

[840high]

93. ....x10

[cali]

3. they didn't put themselves in the position of

owing anything to corporate interests.

[DanTex]

8. No more or less than Hillary. Less, in fact.

I'm pretty sure if Hillary's campaign was primarily financed by a semi-shady billionaire who first got rich with semi-shady wall street speculation, the fact that this benefactor was her father wouldn't really placate anyone.

[peecoolyour]

5. They called FDR a class traitor. nt

[orpupilofnature57]

22. That's why FDR like his cousin Teddy Beat them in to Submission,

whenever and however they could, coming from that background took away any feelings of inferiority, as with most sycophants who mean only to climb out of what they say they'll protect, the middle class and the poor, Dick Nixon, Adolph Hitler, the Bush family, and Hillary Clinton all from the OUR class.

[Rex]

9. ...

[Faryn Balyncd]

12. So you think a person should be judged based on the circumstances of their birth?

[DanTex]

14. Of course not. Like Hillary, both of them fought for progressive causes.

I admire all three. Even though, like Hillary, they made some highly questionable decisions, and were certainly much more connected to the upper crust than the average American.

[Faryn Balyncd]

19. So what does being "connected to the upper crust" have to do with anything?

[DanTex]

21. Well, I've noticed that people have taken to criticizing Hillary for being too connected

to the 1%. Which doesn't make much sense, so I was hoping to give some perspective.

[cali]

24. conflict of interest

[DanTex]

28. You mean like having a billionaire father? Yeah, I guess that could be

a conflict of interest if you're going to be raising taxes on billionaires. Do you think that's why JFK cut the top tax rate and Bill Clinton raised it? I doubt it.

[cali]

36. you apparently don't understand

What that means.

[orpupilofnature57]

40. Ike raised it to 90% after a certain amount, JFK's cuts weren't shit compared

to Ronnie & Shrub .

[DanTex]

50. I agree. But Clinton did in fact raise the top rate.

And JFK did in fact cut it.

[orpupilofnature57]

42. Yeah, that's why he was pulling out of Viet Nam to appease the MIC .

[DanTex]

52. That's speculative. Numerically, he escalated Vietnam. And he invaded Cuba.

He didn't escalate Vietnam very much, by far most of the escalation was by that other liberal hero, LBJ.

[Faryn Balyncd]

65. Perhaps you might want to get your facts straight: JFK proposed cutting tax rates (from 20-91%

... to 14-65%), but his proposals to cut tax rates were not passed into law.
http://www.jfklibrary.org/JFK/JFK-in-History/JFK-on-the-Economy-and-Taxes.aspx

During the Johnson administration, the Revenue Act of 1964 lowered tax rates to 16-77% for the 1964 tax year, and to 14-70% for tax years 1965 and following (from the 20-91% rate that had been established by the Internal Revenue Code o1954).
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/legislation/1960.cfm#1962
http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/docs/fed_individual_rate_history_adjusted.pdf

During the Clinton administration income tax rates that had been 15-31% since the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, were raised to 15-39.6% by the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993.
http://taxfoundation.org/sites/taxfoundation.org/files/docs/fed_individual_rate_history_adjusted.pdf



So, even if JFK had "cut the top tax rate" (which you stated he did, and which he proposed, but which he did not do), the circumstances that existed in 1960 were totally different than in 1992. (91% vs 31% top marginal tax rates in 1960 and 1992 respectively).

[DanTex]

70. True, he was assissinated before he was able to accomplish his stated goal of cutting taxes.

And also true, LBJ didn't get as big a tax cut as JFK wanted.

I don't see how any of that makes much difference to the point i was making.

[Faryn Balyncd]

83. It would appear that your main assertion in your OP is an attempt to demonstrate that

... the birth of FDR and JFK into circumstance of wealth make them "1% Connected" and to neutralize criticism of HRC's likely positions, which you illustrate by saying "let's be serious. Speeches at Goldman Sachs? Really?". You later elaborated by saying, "people have taken to criticizing Hillary for being too connected to the 1%.",

But to conflate being born into wealth while advancing policies that favored average Americans (as FDR did, for which he was labeled a "traitor to his class" by conservatives), with being backed by, and seeking council from, Wall Street insiders, seems an example of less than sound reasoning.




Then, when someone mentions "conflict of interest", rather than addressing the issues of HRC's policy positions, her advisers, or her backers, you appear to attempt to deflect this point by discussing JFK's lowering of top tax rates, and Bill Clinton's raising of tax rates.

This again seems to be based on less than sound reasoning, primarily because of the vastly different preexisting tax rates in 1960 and 1992 (91% vs 31%).

When it is pointed out that, in addition to this vast difference in circumstance, that your statement that JFK lowered top tax rates is not even historically correct, you reply by saying that you don't see "what difference" it makes.

Yet, you still do not address the fact that criticism of HRC is primarily based on policy, not on some vague perception of "1% connected"-ness.




The entire drift of this thread seems to be divert attention to policy by attacking a straw man (the straw man being the false portrayal of criticism of HRC as "1% connected"-ness rather than policy based.)

That's the major point.

[DanTex]

85. That is correct. That was my point.

Hillary, of course, also backs policies that favors average Americans. The person mentioning "conflict of interest" didn't bring up any policies. They just said "conflict of interest" as if to say that somehow Hillary had more of a conflict of interest than JFK or FDR, people who were not just supported by aristocrats, but who actually were aristocrats. The top tax rate thing was half in jest -- no I don't think JFK cut the top tax rate to make his dad more money. He did it because he thought it was best for the economy. The same reason that Bill Clinton raised it. And, yes, circumstances were vastly different, and yet there is no doubt that what JFK did was extremely helpful to high earners.

But the main point I'm making is that, by any measure, when it comes to the truly rich, FDR and JFK had much more of a conflict of interest than Hillary. To their credit, they didn't let this conflict of interest dictate their policy, just as Hillary's (much smaller) connections with the upper crust don't dictate hers. Which is what makes all the talk about how Clinton was paid for giving speeches by some banks so absurd.

By all means, let's discuss policy. Hillary's voting record on economic issues when she was in congress is solidly progressive, and not very different from Bernie's. There are no policy-based reasons to believe that Hillary is "aiming to impoverish us" as one other poster in this thread put it. There are no policy reasons to believe that she cares more about the 1% than ordinary Americans. I will concede that she's not as economically progressive as Bernie, although in practice that's not going to matter because the areas where Bernie is further left than Hillary aren't going to get through congress anyway. But to outright say that Hillary doesn't care about middle and working class Americans is just, well, stupid.

[orpupilofnature57]

90. + 1000 Well Put !!!!!!

[orpupilofnature57]

87. Nice info , Thanks

[orpupilofnature57]

34. Look again, " Connected " is what got us in this mess, she isn't

connected to a solution since her husband was President .

[orpupilofnature57]

44. Nothing unless your connected to the upper crust, remember

at the top of the cream of the crop, theres always scum .

[orpupilofnature57]

26. Hillary Cajoled, Scraped, and Angled to get there ,they were born .

I wouldn't even try to compare a modern politician to them, unless we're talking about alignment in philosophies, then we can compare Bernie Sanders to them and Teddy Roosevelt .

[DesertFlower]

15. the kennedy's had money, but

they all went into some kind of public service. tried to help those less fortunate than them.

that being said i'm not bashing hillary. bernie is my first choice, but if hillary is the nominee she will get my vote.

[DanTex]

16. Yes they did. Bill and Hillary, of course, have also spent immense effort on public service.

[orpupilofnature57]

45. It's made them Rich .

[DanTex]

48. No, charitable work is not what made them rich.

What made them rich is writing and speaking. For some reason, people like to read and listen to them.

[orpupilofnature57]

88. Oh I thought you meant Bill & Hillary entering politics .

[bunnies]

23. FDR & JFK were 1%-connected. Hillary is 1%-indebted.

Big difference.

[cali]

25. bingo

[DanTex]

27. She's not indebted to anyone. In fact, she's very wealthy.

Some people have paid her for speeches, but they got their speeches. Speech-giving isn't indentured servitude.

[bunnies]

30. Right. They expect nothing.

They just *really* like to hear her talk.

[DanTex]

35. Who knows what different people expect? But she owes nobody anything.

[whatchamacallit]

67. What color is the sky on your planet? n/t

[DanTex]

73. It is blue. Anything else?

[bunnies]

74. So.... All the campaign contributions are for what?

Future speeches? Hardly.

[DanTex]

80. For supporting candidates that people agree with and would like to see elected.

[bunnies]

91. "the people" aka the corporations.

same same. Corporations are people too.

[DanTex]

92. Corporation's can't contribute to federal campaigns. As you know.

[cali]

37. bwahahaha

[DanTex]

38. OK then. I'll chalk that one up in the "cali wants intelligent discussion" category.

[whatchamacallit]

53. It's not about being connected to wealth, it's about the moneyed connections

bankrolling her presidential bid. She will owe and we will pay.

[DanTex]

56. By far the most moneyed connections bankrolling a campaign would be

Joe Kennedy. A semi-corrupt billionaire (in 2015 dollars), probably the single most responsible force behind JFK's entire career. So there's that.

Clinton, and the Democrats generally this time around, are tapping pretty much the same wealthy donor base as Obama did. People like Soros, Thomas Steyer, etc. They're rich, but they're also liberal. You know, like JFK and FDR.

[orpupilofnature57]

46. +1000 !!!!

[peecoolyour]

54. Boom!

[mythology]

60. She and Bill have an estimated wealth of 11 to 55 million dollars

That means they aren't indebted and in fact have fuck off money.

[whatchamacallit]

64. Lol. Presuming they would use their own money (short by at least a billion) to bankroll her bid

She will be owned.

[lumberjack_jeff]

76. egg-fucking-zactly. n/t

[PeteSelman]

29. FDR welcomed their hatred.

Hillary wants to be them.

[whatchamacallit]

32. In a nutshell n/t

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

31. The advantage to being born wealthy is you can't be bought.

[AZ Progressive]

43. So I guess we need more class traitors

Lets see if we can get Nick Hanauer to run for office

[YoungDemCA]

61. So the Bushes, Scaifes, Kochs, etc. are A-OK?

News to me.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

63. No; they are bad for other reasons.

My point was only that a rich politician doesn't necessarily need the money of corporations and lobbyists. It doesn't mean that they won't be horrible assholes for some other reason. Also, Scaife and the Kochs are not elected officials; they buy elected officials - those that can be bought. And nobody had to try to bribe the Bush family to do bad things. They were already bad.

[YoungDemCA]

66. You do realize how wealthy Bill and Hillary are, and have been since Bill left office, yes?

And no, that wealth has nothing to do with bribery from corporations or lobbyists.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

69. Yes, of course. I wasn't referring to anyone in particular.

Just the general issue of whether and to what extent money affects the actions of politicians.

[TBF]

33. Friedrich Engels

Was born to a wealthy cotton manufacturer in Prussia. Great argument that birth is not always destiny.

But what has Hillary done to show us her commitment to the working class? (and I think answering that is the key to getting the support she needs). Personally I'm supporting Bernie at present, but Clinton is still a better choice than many of the candidates out there. Her job will be to convince us what she can do to help middle America. "Trickle down" isn't going to cut it.

[Exilednight]

39. Clintonomics does not equal liberalism. nt

[Fumesucker]

49. We have erected pyramids in honor of our escaping

[orpupilofnature57]

71. Cool .

[YoungDemCA]

62. The lesson I've learned from DU is that some people want a Great Man (TM) to save them

Emphasis on the man. Preferably a rich white one, who "can't be bought."

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

68. There is no such creature, and I think most of us know that.

The issue is whether and to what extent a politician can be bought or bribed or corrupted or otherwise persuaded by contributors or other 1%ers to act contrary to the interests of the people who elected him/her or whose votes he/she is soliciting. Anyone who thinks any single person can, if elected, single-handedly fix everything is dreaming. However, it's always fair to question how much a candidate's allegiances are affected by money.

[lumberjack_jeff]

77. Not exactly. One that *refuses* to be bought would be okay too. n/t

[bunnies]

78. No. "some people" want a no bullshit representative of the people.

I'll ignore the sexist / racist bullshit accusations. Its not worth addressing.

[frylock]

81. I tend to focus on policies rather than genitalia.

[PeteSelman]

94. You didn't do well in school did you?

THAT'S what you've gleaned from this thread? Really?

I'm sure everyone would be happy with Warren or ANYONE, male or female, with the guts to stand up to the corporate slime that own this country.

You've chosen to pretend there's something sexist about liking FDR over Hillary when it has nothing to do with gender and everything to do with policy.

[Fumesucker]

97. Probably a post better made in the BOG

I think they would appreciate the irony.

[moondust]

72. They had a spine. n/t

[lumberjack_jeff]

75. Noblesse oblige.

The modern aristocracy have the idea of noblesse oblige exactly backwards.

Instead of "to whom much is given, much is required", they believe that "All this job creatin' is hard work! I deserve more!"

[alc]

84. we need to look to the 1% for leadership, not condemn them

Or we could just judge everyone one their merits and not give a flip if they're in the 1% or 10% or 20% or 99% or if we don't even know.

Being in the 1% does mean we should give an extra bit of scrutiny to their associates and potential obligations (especially if it happened over a short time and recently). Even if only one side thought there was a quid pro quo, it can make things messy. By no means a disqualifier but not something to ignore either. If voters don't do our due diligence on candidates we are as screwed as companies that ignore due diligence on mergers.

[McCamy Taylor]

95. Rich politicians don't have to grovel for money.