Mark,

Hopefully what we have in common is that we believe we should have a government OF, FOR and BY the people.

I see you guys as making excuses for corporatist who undermine both free markets and democracy. Until you/your side admits that is what's going on I think we will continue to have a divide. Especially when your simple retort is to call us socialist for opposing corporate interference with the political process.

I think you guys are bound to this false neoconservative ideology based on your social conservatism and pay the price by giving up democratic and free market principles.

You put your religion before your country and sadly our leaders care nothing about your religion except as a tool with which to manipulate a large segment of the population who actually believe war, discrimination, program cuts for the poor and increased wealth for the wealthy are Christian principles.

The sad fact is that you are being used...these guys who are running our country are in no way Christians.....They are in no way supporters of true free markets and they have no problems undermining our democracy to maintain their power.

I really think democrats stand for what most Americans believe and want....government of, by and for the people while Neocons want Corporate rule. I have no problem with a true conservative like Teddy, Ab or Ike.

I don't think the gap can be bridged, nor do I feel it should be bridges. Rather than searching for any sort of commonality, we need merely to convince the other side that we are in fact the correct side.

Muirgeo,

It is amusing to see you write that...amusing, and a bit sad...sad that you don't recognise just how bought and sold your Democratic Party is, how it daren't make a move without checking with its special interest masters...rich lawyers, rich labor union bosses, rich non-profit directors, rich Hollywood corporate bosses...Money runs the Democratic Party...the Party which is most deeply interested in an alleged "fair" distribution of money, completely the tool of those with the most money.

You probably consider the Bush family very rich - they do, indeed, have quite a lot of money...but they are pikers compared to the Kennedy's and Rockefeller's....Bill Gates is one of yours, Muirgeo, not one of ours. Do you know how much money Ted Kennedy gets from his oil leases? Did you know how the Kennedy family scammed a bunch of poor farmers out of their oil rights half a century ago to get those leases? Do you ever see a Kenendy advocating a tax which would actually hit Kennedy financial interests?

Wake up and smell the coffee...the people interested in government of, by and for the people are we conservative Republicans...we are your only defense against a creeping Socio-Corporatist facsism in the name of leftwing ideology...

Ditto Mark's response to muirgeo--he's another brainwashed parrot, just like his buddy, Canadian Bacon. As long as we see everything their way, there will be no divide. Bad news, muirgeo--there's always gonna be a divide. More bad news--you have children. I'll bet they'll be properly indocrinated before they flee the nest. Poor kids...

Each side accuses the other of being wrong, evil,and corrupt. This is natural when it comes to battles where much is at stake, like wars. So it has been, and so it will be. But today we are seeing rhetoric even more dastardly and daring than should be appropriate for peaceful political battles. This is because this is no ordinary political battle, but a fight to the death.

Think about it. For the past decade or so, political opinion has been split pretty evenly. Certainly, each side has had its moments of popularity and unpopularity, but on average the people are still divided when it comes to political affiliation and political candidates. In this way, each side has had some semblence of solidness and security. However, this also poses a serious threat to each ideology. Even one or two seats lost in Congress, or a government official of one side being replaced by another, could send either party down the road to ultimate destruction. In this way, anxiety has heightened, anger has swelled, and desperation has fluorished to the point where almost every politician feels that he is fighting to the death. With so much to lose these days, it's no wonder that each side has resorted to making unfounded claims about the other. Neither side will give up until the other side is reduced to insignificance or replaced.

I'm almost positive that each side is not telling the complete truth. Do I feel that one side is more truthful than the other? Yes, and there's no doubt that everyone who's reading this has similar feelings about their party of choice. I don't have a problem with people having feelings of support for their side. However, what I do have a problem with is this heated rhetoric going back and forth about corruption and who's evil and who's not. Why can't we go back to the good old days where each side could actually talk to, not past, the other side, and actually resolve situations together?

With the way things are now, political elections will become irrelevant, since neither side will be able to accomplish anything, so embittered are the combatants that each would rather continue the quarrel instead of teaming up to face a larger and more dangerous foe that threatens their very way of life.

Whatever Bo Chen is smokin', I'll avoid like the plague....

Bo me no believe, you luv me long time...five dolla?

Right, watch out for the Democrats bringing about a socio-corporate fascist state. Good thing the Republicans don't have deep political and financial ties with big business.

Seriously, how you can possibly say that special interests in a problem specific to the Democratic party? Has it escaped your notice that the number of lobbysts in Washington has double since George Bush took office. The K Street Project, hello?

Money runs the Democratic Party...

And what runs the Republican party? Rainbows and puppies?

There's some parable in some book of mythology somewhere...something about the speck in somebody else's eye and the plank in your own....

You are getting a lot of traction from one guy's choice of clothing-- a guy who works for Access Hollywood, no less ( or, no better, maybe). What you don't have is a connection between this guy and "the leftist/MSM/social elite". That part you just made up, or 'rigged', by jamming three rightfully separate groups together into one lump.

Hume,

Doubled? Really? Got a non-MoveOn source for that?

And do you have any idea what the K Street Project was? Bet you don't...you've probably got some lurid stories about it, but here's the real deal:

Back in 1995, the K Street lobbying firms were still donating 67% of their money to the newly-minority Democrats...the project was to convince them to start donating to the newly-majority Republicans...and it worked, a bit. Now they donate 60% to GOP, 40% to Democrats...we'll never get to that percentage the Democrats got, and this is because we play fair...a lobbyists who doesn't give 67% to the GOP won't be shut out the way the Democrats used to shut them out if they donated anything less than 67% to the Democratic Party.

The whole DeLay issue? Just revenge for daring to shut off a small part of the Democratic money machine.

Omega,

I don't think that is entirely correct - if the Democrats do manage to win the Congress, we won't be doing the obstructionism that they are displaying...we won't take a bogus AP/Ipsos poll and say it now trumps the results of an election.

Rather than partake in this bipartisan pissing contest, I'll say this: Whoever thinks that corporate and public interests are positively correlated in any significant way is hitting the crack pipe real hard. Real hard.

As for the communism, I have two things to say:

1. Shirts of that ilk are, in pop culture as well as MANY other subcultures, considered hip. You are overstating the disconnect. I assure you, most of America would not flinch at the sight of that shirt.

2. Condemning an ideology for the actions of its espousers is silly. The Crusades killed people. The Crusades were executed in the name of God. Therefore, God must suck along with everybody that believes in Him. Luckily, I'm not dumb enough to buy that ridiculous argument, so I'm still a Christian. I'll leave it as an exercise to investigate other situations where this sort of reasoning has led to irrational hatred of an ideology and people.

In the words of Scalia, "Get over it".

Getting back to the story, . . .
Somebody made that T-shirt, and it wasn't Vincent. My guess is that the powers of free enterprise are at work again, reducing a discredited political icon into a fashion statement.
In other words, you are seeing the Star and Sickle's last gasp.

Here is my source.

Care to take your foot out of your mouth and admit you have no idea what you're talking about?

Interesting post, though it seems to be full of fallacies. Before I coontinue I'd like to point out I am not a communist, but i do admire true Communists. The first and most important fallacy is "Communism is responsible for at least 100 million murders in the 20th century", Communism has never actually been attempted thus cannot have been responsible for a single death. To prove my point (yes I said prove, this will require logic), I might as well start by defining Communism, in the most simple terms Communism requires 3 things, 1) to be 100% democratic, as in whenever a major decision has to be made the people affected would vote themselves, 2) it requires there to be no money, it requires wealth (as in products) to be distributed by the will of the people (this requires the first requirement), 3) that it requires a governmentless state, ie NO government at all. People would not vote for a government nor be under a dictatorship, people would make all of the decisions. Now that "Communism" has been defined, show me a single example of Communism and show that its resulted in a single death (if you can manage that I'll happily admit communism is a complete and utter failure). Good luck :)

Rolling stone
I'm gonna see my picture on the cover
Stone
Gonna buy five copies for my mother
Stone
Gonna see my smiling face
On the cover of the rolling stone

I think a lot of people do stuff like that just for attention. It's not illegal to wear a hammer and sickle, or a swastica, or fly the confederate flag. I'm sure a lot of people would get pissed at me if I took a white sheet, poked eye holes in it, and rode around on a horse wearing it. But nobody would be able to do anything.

In fact, the high school mascot in the town I live is the "galloping ghosts". Either the 2 black people in town don't have a problem with it, or they realize they aren't going to undo over a hundred years of tradition, or they simply can't move the giant statue in front of the school. I tell ya, it's quite a sight though.

Hume,

Well, I went to your source - a Washington Post story. The Washington Post is some times a great newspaper - it does have the best overall MSM print reporting, as far as I'm concerned...but it still is an MSM outlet, and thus must be handled with care and caution.

In your link you'll find that the story purports to show this massive increase in the number of lobbyists during a "fitful" economy - now, the article was written in 2005, which was a boom economic year, so anyone who describes it as "fitful" is someone with a political axe to grind...and as the economy is presided over by a Republican government, we can swiftly deduce that the axe to grind is anti-Republican in nature.

This literally took me a minute to figure out...pity you didn't; because if you had, you would have then done some checking...and found this article - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/28/AR2006012800042.html - , also from the Washington Post:

Give yourself a point for the correct answer to this question: What do Tom Bevill, Lloyd Meeds and Tillie Fowler have in common? (a) They are all former members of Congress (b) They are all registered lobbyists (c) They are all dead.

The answer is all of the above. I offer this little quiz as a way of highlighting a point that has caught my attention over the past several months as the media have focused increasing attention on lobbying and tried to quantify the registered lobbyists who currently work the halls of Congress...

...As the publisher of the directory Washington Representatives and the Web site http://www.lobbyists.info , I have a responsibility to my customers to present accurate and up-to-date information. But the number of actively registered lobbyists that we publish hovers around just 11,500.

How could our count be so different from the widely reported totals? I had to find out. And that's where my quiz comes in.

I have no idea where some of the media's numbers come from. But I took a closer look at the figure that SOPR presents and compared it with our data. The difference in our numbers comes from the fact that we serve different constituencies and apply different methodologies in how we present the data. The Senate Office of Public Records provides a historical record of registered lobbyists. We provide a current record of active lobbyists. It is no wonder that the data look so different.

Let me make it clear that SOPR does a terrific job. We, and many others, rely on its raw data for our publications. Its staff does an exceptional job of making lobby registrations available to the public, and its figure accurately reflects the number of lobbyists who have registered since 1998.

So, I had no foot to take out of my mouth - as soon as I heard your assertion, I knew it was a stupid leftwing exaggeration...lobbying it big, but it hasn't doubled in five years...it can't; its not possible. You guys really need to start living in the real world - the world of the possible.

Before you come back here all high and mighty, you should CHECK your facts...but, of course, if you were to check your facts, you'd have to drop your anti-Bush animus.

Sorry for being catty, but I get really annoyed when its suggested I'm presenting partisan propaganda when I'm actually saying something that is simply a matter of fact.

Here's an article from The Economist (that ultra pinko communist rag) about the decline of meritocracy in America. You're kidding yourself if you think this can be identified as a Democrat problem. Its an American problem.

Most Americans see nothing wrong with inequality of income so long as it comes with plenty of social mobility: it is simply the price paid for a dynamic economy. But the new rise in inequality does not seem to have come with a commensurate rise in mobility. There may even have been a fall.

The most vivid evidence of social sclerosis comes from politics. A country where every child is supposed to be able to dream of becoming president is beginning to produce a self-perpetuating political elite. George Bush is the son of a president, the grandson of a senator, and the sprig of America's business aristocracy. John Kerry, thanks to a rich wife, is the richest man in a Senate full of plutocrats. He is also a Boston brahmin, educated at St Paul's, a posh private school, and Yale—where, like the Bushes, he belonged to the ultra-select Skull and Bones society.

Mr Kerry's predecessor as the Democrats' presidential nominee, Al Gore, was the son of a senator. Mr Gore, too, was educated at a posh private school, St Albans, and then at Harvard. And Mr Kerry's main challenger from the left of his party? Howard Brush Dean was the product of the same blue-blooded world of private schools and unchanging middle names as Mr Bush (one of Mr Bush's grandmothers was even a bridesmaid to one of Mr Dean's). Mr Dean grew up in the Hamptons and on New York's Park Avenue.

The most remarkable feature of the continuing power of America's elite—and its growing grip on the political system—is how little comment it arouses. Britain would be in high dudgeon if its party leaders all came from Eton and Harrow. Perhaps one reason why the rise of caste politics raises so little comment is that something similar is happening throughout American society. Everywhere you look in modern America—in the Hollywood Hills or the canyons of Wall Street, in the Nashville recording studios or the clapboard houses of Cambridge, Massachusetts—you see elites mastering the art of perpetuating themselves. America is increasingly looking like imperial Britain, with dynastic ties proliferating, social circles interlocking, mechanisms of social exclusion strengthening and a gap widening between the people who make the decisions and shape the culture and the vast majority of ordinary working stiffs.

"left-wing" claim? Are you insane man? Is it possible for you to disagree with anyone without that person being left, liberal, or communist? By god, you're daft. Every source I've seen has claimed that figure. I'll read the link you provide and get back to you. Good grief.

http://cpusa.org/article/articleview/734/1/132/

Count on the commies as those that support illegal immigrants. I'm willing to bet that they have a large hand in the organization of these rallies. MM, May 1 is the next one, very interesting.

Ok, read it. The author believes the numbers cited widely are highly inflated and suggests some reasons why that might be. Great, thanks for bringing that to my attention. I'll from now on qualify the doubled figure and will advocate a definitive count being done, as I can find no source that talks about the counting process.

But regardless of that authors expressed skepticism, the larger point about run away lobbying remains. And what of the rest of the Post article that you did not respond too? Your original point about special interests being a problem of Democrats only is still just as detached from reality as before.

Jack Abramoff and Duke Cunningham aren't Democrats, after all.

Its absurd really. How many lobbyists has George Bush appointed in his administration? What is John Ashcroft now doing? What did Joe Allbaugh do when he left FEMA?

What kind of company did Gov Haley Barbour start?

Go read Kevin Phillips 1994 Arrogant Capital to see how both parties are heavily under the influence of special interests.

And your foot is still in your mouth, Mark. You first insinuated the doubled figure was from a Move.on source (a website I've never visited in my life) and you next called it a "stupid leftwing exagerration." But the doubled figure comes from the "Senate Office of Public Records. Um, the Senate Office of Public Records might be wrong, for reasons the author suggests, but it certainly is not wrong because its guily of "stupid leftwing exaggeration."

But all in all, I'm glad to see the Post piece linked. If the number of lobbyists is less than 30,000 plus I want to know.

Hume,

No, I just asked if you had a non-MoveOn source...because I knew as soon as I read your post that your claim was suspect. You then kindly provided the link, and that proved useful in exploding yet another leftwing myth.

You see, I know where you come from on this - you saw that report and it confirmed your pre-conceived notion that the Republican government is for sale to the highest bidding lobbyist. Because it confirmed your notion, you didn't check it out...I've done it now, and now you're trying to dodge and weave your way out of the fact that you were suckered.

Lobbying, what is it? It is a Constitutionally protected activity - it is the way we petition the government for redress of grievances...remember, your saintly advocate for the cause is just a corrupt special interest lobbyist to me, and vice versa. We can't all go to DC to make our wishes known, so we hire - via the groups we belong to - people who know the ins and outs of Washington DC to lobby for our cause. You might have some sort of mental image of Big Corporations being the lobbyists, but all sorts of lobbyists are there - from NOW, NRA, ACLU, PFAW, Sierra Club, etc, etc, etc...

How to reform it? Well, you really can't - the lobbyists MUST be allowed to try and convince members of Congress to vote their way...we can prevent outright bribery, and perhaps prevent former elected officials from taking employment with lobbying firms, but the lobbyists must remain. The real problem you've got, Hume, is that the government is so deeply involved in all aspects of American life...a government which can regulate everything is a government which has everyone deeply interested in what it is doing, and determined to keep it out of the way as much as possible.

I believe it is an Interstate Commerce Commission regulation that prevents smoking on means of private mass transportation (aircraft, bus lines, etc)...you might very much like the fact that they are all non-smoking...but a government which can decree that private enterprise operate in a certain manner is a goverment which private enterprise will spend a great deal of money and effort trying to influence.

If you want to curb the lobbying game in DC, then get the government out of everyone's way...and need I remind you which political Party it was that got the government involved in everything?

Do "New Deal" and "Great Society" ring a bell?

"No, I just asked if you had a non-MoveOn source...because I knew as soon as I read your post that your claim was suspect. You then kindly provided the link, and that proved useful in exploding yet another leftwing myth.

You see, I know where you come from on this - you saw that report and it confirmed your pre-conceived notion that the Republican government is for sale to the highest bidding lobbyist. Because it confirmed your notion, you didn't check it out...I've done it now, and now you're trying to dodge and weave your way out of the fact that you were suckered."

A left-wing myth coming from the Senate Office of Public Records. The very left-wing Senate Office of Records obviously fabricated their registerd lobbyists record to perpetuate the left-wing agenda, Mark. The doubling of the number of lobbyists in their records can't possibly have anything to do with the widely acknowledged boom in lobbying. Nope, left-wing myth, plain and simple.

You can't debate anything without it being about motivational bias. I hate to break this to you, Mark, but your views are not orthodox. There are people who disagree with you, who aren't left-wing communists. Ever take a stroll through Reason magazine? Andrew Sullivan? Greg Djerejian? Paul Craig Roberts? Kevin Phillips? Paul O'Neal?

My preconceived notion is that our gov't has become increasingly plutocratic, that you can't acknowledge that this is a bi-partisan problem speaks more to your biases than mine. I'm not the one who can't finish a post or response to someone without engaging in ad hominem analysis. You, on the other hand, are nearly incapble of finishing a post without ascribing to a position you disagree with the label of "leftist" or "liberal".

I'm fully aware there is a widespectrum of lobbying interests. And the problem I see is that the way our system is set up, the people with the most money have the most influence. Now, you offer a way to fix that, and that's great. Bring that to the table. But this nonsense about the problem being specifically Democratic is ridiculous, for the reasons cited, reasons which you have waved your hands at for apparently ideological reasons.

Hume wrote, " ... without engaging in ad hominem analysis. You, on the other hand ..."

I can't be the only one that sees the irony of that statement.

Yeah, and if you add on the words the precede that ellipse it puts that sentence into context.

And that makes it less ad hominem?

Your defense is funnier than the original irony.

I'm still trying to find the logic in whining about the prevailing party getting more lobbying money. Why, exactly, would anyone spend money to get the Dems to do anything?

When they had both houses of Congress and the White House---which they like to ignore, while Randi et Al whine as if this never happened before THIS administration---the Democrats got more money from lobbyists.

Before jumping on a Lobbying Reform bandwagon, I'd take a hard look at The Rule Of Unintended Consequences, using McCain/Feingold as a prime example. It is really hard to fix a problem without creating a worse one.

And while it seems that the Republican Party has a much better grasp of economics and finance, the old days of associating Big Money with the party are long past. Just look at the donations to the party, the ratio of $50-dollar or less contributions coming from many Republicans to multi-millions coming from a few Democrats.

And as for the preponderance of the wealthy in politics, there are several reasons. One is that the kind of person who can be a good president is usually the kind of person who can make a fortune in the private sector---it is hard to pass that up, easier if you already have the money. Also, the rich tend to not be so grasping, because they already have money, know they can't use much more, and want to do something else. The last poor man we elected to the White House proved to be the most corrupt and venal president in recent history, grasping at every opportunity to squeeze a dollar out of his position and even looting the White House when he left. Personally, I prefer someone who doesn't have to trade the Lincoln Bedroom for living room furniture. Though I admit to a bias for those who inherit or earn their money vs those who simply marry it.

"And that makes it less ad hominem?"

Yeah, it does. Since I'm not dismissing his viewpoint on the grounds that you consider ad hominem. There's a difference between saying, "you're wrong because you're liberal", and, "you consider anyone you disagree with to be liberal."

If you can't recognize that difference, whatever.

Hume would be ashamed of you; your argument is directed at the person not his position, ad hominem, irony. I'm sorry, your defense isn't funny, it’s pathetic.