<p>“Interesting how our conservative friends from anywhere seem to favor candidates bought and paid for by the oil companies, the pharmaceutical companies, etc”</p>
<p>That is YOUR opinion and isn’t backed-up by facts. But that’s ok. The donor lists of the various candidates are VERRRRRY interesting.</p>
<p>Although to be fair, we do have a “republican” who bought the office of mayor here in NYC. And now he has his condescending sights set on the presidency. I can’t imagine which is worse. Nanny Bloomberg or the loathsome and revolting Georgie Pataki. Anyone?</p>
<p>
I can’t comment on everything you say but this statement is ill-advised. GWB has little or no history with the big oil companies, other than receiving campaign donations as do virtually all Democratic and Republican candidates for high national office. GWB’s support has always come primarily from independent oil operators - one or two man “businesses” whose interests are often in conflict with the goals of the major oil companies. VP Cheney’s Halliburton ties are also inapposite since Halliburton prides itself on quality service to all oil industry players, big oil and independents alike. In fact, the big oil companies are clearly distancing themselves from domestic oil production by selling most of their continental US holdings to independent oil operators and by focusing their efforts on international, off-shore, and Alaskan ventures.</p>
<p>The oil execs are his buddies. Condi was also on the board of one of the companies…a tanker is named after her. </p>
<p>And the assertion that the oil companies give donations to candidates of both parties is one of those statements that while technically true is actually an obfuscation in service of a lie: some donors may give $5,000 to one side, $250,000 to the other. But perhaps this is just another example of “fair and balanced.”</p>
<p>The oil and gas industry does primarily favor Republicans, probably because of their focus on deregulation. The numbers range from 6:4 to 8:2, and average 75 cents for Republicans for every $1 in campaign donations. But as this link shows (<a href=“http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=E01)%5B/url%5D”>http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.asp?Ind=E01)</a>, typically over 60% of all donations come from individuals. Independent oil operators are far more involved in the political process than big oil. And if you knew anything aout GWB and the oil industry, you would know that independent oil operators are his buddies, not big oil execs. There’s a big difference.</p>
<p>The Dad posted: “The oil execs are his buddies.”</p>
<p>That’s not exactly what you posted previously. Should a democrat win the Presidency in 2008, can we call them bought and paid for by the trial lawyer lobby?</p>
<p>
I hope they named it “The Condoleeza.” Some among us are very touchy on that Condi business.</p>
<p>Zoosermom - the “trial lawyer lobby”, as you refer to it, is pretty much all that stands between you and the loss of every single remaining right to reimbursment for loss or injury caused by anyone with more wealth or power than you - and the fact that you undoubtedly don’t realize that is a tribute to the power of the big business propaganda machine which has been pushing the myth of “rampant frivolous litigation” for years, to the point where people uncritically accept it as true, despite its factually indisputable falsehood.</p>
<p>“Zoosermom - the “trial lawyer lobby”, as you refer to it, is pretty much all that stands between you and the loss of every single remaining right to reimbursment for loss or injury caused by anyone with more wealth or power than you - and the fact that you undoubtedly don’t realize that is a tribute to the power of the big business propaganda machine which has been pushing the myth of “rampant frivolous litigation” for years, to the point where people uncritically accept it as true, despite its factually indisputable falsehood.”</p>
<p>I have worked for law firms for over 20 years, so please don’t present the propaganda line to me because I’m part of THEIR propaganda machine and know how much bull it all is. To quote my jewish mother, "darling I could tell you stories!</p>
<p>Using the same logic, the “big oil” business is what stands between you and and not having a drop of gas to put in your car and “big pharmaceutical” business is what stands between you and disease or early death and the “big defense” industry is what stands between you and … you get the message. Yet, they seem to be all fair game for attacks when your seat is on the left side of the aisle.</p>
<p>Trial lawyers…good thing no republicans EVER sue for anything…yep, they never sue, never go to court,
Yes, those lawyers that protect people, fight for the innocent, yeah…</p>
<p>Guess having the judicial system is bad too, eh zoosermom?</p>
<p>I would love if abermoff, and the rest of the gang didn’t use lawyers, would have made things that much easier, and what about the defense funds contributed to by many many republicans to defend their cronies…</p>
<p>lawyers work both sides and maybe corporations can stop using lawyers, casue they of course never do any wrong</p>
<p>too bad there were lawyers going after enron…</p>
<p>it is amazing that people think lawyers shouldn’t be around, cause you can bet your life the coporation spend billions on them a year to cover their behinds</p>
<p>zoosermom, If you ever are in trouble or you kid is, bet you will use a lawyer…guilty or innocent…but then you will say that you and your kids never did anything wrong ever…well, that’s when lawyers are really needed, to help the innocent</p>
<p>what about pharmecutical companies, the banks, the weapons industry, the energy companies, the beef industry, walmart, oh gosh, lets talk about the lawyers and not the others myriad of industries that lobby congress</p>
<p>and you want to talk about lobbying, you got K street project - no lobbbying or manipulation or anything going on there…</p>
<p>CGM, I never said anything about the importance of lawyers in society or their jobs. What I did imply was that they have an enormous amount of political power, which they do. The legal community is overwhelmingly liberal and I disagree with many, if not most of its views, and I think that willingness to buy candidates contributes to a culture where issues are decided by judicial fiat, instead of the legislative process. It happens to be that I work in the legal community and see this stuff firsthand. I would not presume to speak of the other industries.</p>
<p>You know, CGM, I try to be polite and pleasant to you, but your snarkiness is a caricature of the Bay Area liberal.</p>
<p>The biggest risk to Dems here is that a de-facto Republican will be replaced with by an actual one.</p>
<p>No, their biggest risk is that they have taken an honest, Kennedy/Jackson Democrat–a scarce commodity–and turned him into a de facto Republican who will probably hold the seat.</p>
<p>You mean scarce like a Goldwater Republican?</p>
<p>“You mean scarce like a Goldwater Republican?”</p>
<p>Isn’t she a senator from New York now?</p>
<p>
The Democrats are Big Oil. The Clinton Administration approved the mergers of Chevron Texaco, Exxon Mobil, BP Amaco, etc. You get the picture. Now we are paying for the stupidity of Big Clinton Oil.</p>
<p>Democrats love to say VP Cheney is big oil because he worked for Haliburton. They fail to mention Cheney long ago sold all of his stock in Haliburton. Just more distortions from Democrats.</p>
<p>Q: Why have the democrats lost the last two presidential elections, even when a decapitated chicken could have beaten Bush in 2004?</p>
<p>A: They do not appeal to the center.</p>
<p>Liberman was a senator who reached across the aisle, something very few people are willing to do these days. Yet another moderate has fallen victim to the political radicalization of this country. Radical Democrats, including all of Liberman’s “friends” in the Senate who have now disowned him, you just lost your salvation.</p>
<p>Perhaps without the chains of a radical base, Liberman can achieve true greatness. This may be the best thing to ever happen to him, not to mention the Senate.</p>
<p>I’d vote for Sen. Liberman in November. I hope he runs on the Unity’08 ticket for President.</p>
<p>Driver, I’m not going to let you play that card unchallenged. I was on Scoop Jackson’s Senate staff as my first job out of college and then worked on his unsuccessful primary campaign in 1976. And I knew Richard Perle when he was a young self-important fathead as opposed to the older, more self-important, bigger fathead that he is today. </p>
<p>Scoop would have been appalled by the Bush administration’s ineptitude in the Middle East and I doubt he would have given them the kind of cover that Lieberman does. And while Scoop was hawkish, he was also fiercely partisan. This is not a replay of Vietnam, tearing apart the Democratic party.</p>
<p>Bman, you need to check out where the center is. Only [roughly] 10 percent of Democrats and 25 percent of Independents still support Bush’s policies in Iraq. <em>We</em> are the majority. You are the ones trapped in an echo chamber assuring each other of your competence and popularity. I’ve been a Scammon-and-Wattenberg centrist for more than 30 years, and Ben Wattenberg himself vetted me for my first job out of college. This president has unified the Democrats far better than they ever could on their own. When the Democrats take over, I hope you enjoy the same degree of bi-partisanship that the current administration has practiced. Personally, I’m inclined to do to the Republican structures what Rome did to Carthage.</p>
<p>DadGuy, you need to get out more. Or at least read more. Schlesinger, the Republican candidate, polled at 13 percent in a test of three-way matchups taken about three weeks ago. Lieberman is in a pickle of his own devising. If he accepts Republican funding and works with Republican consultants, he validates what Lamont has said about him. He’s going to be hard pressed for both staff and dollars. What an ignominious end. Ironically, he probably would have pulled this out if not for announcing the sleazy tactic of distributing petitions to run as an Independent if he lost his primary bid; that itself infuriated so many people that it probably cost him the election.</p>
<p>Finally, if I were a Republican panjandrum, I would be be uneasy about the prospects of Democratic turnout this year. In the CA-50, the Democratic turnout beat the Republican by 15 percent…there just weren’t enough of them. The turnout in Connecticut, a high-profile race with a clear choice, was staggering.</p>
<p>I remarked to TheMom, who is usually more diplomatically spoken than I am, over dinner tonight about the Republican spin that it’s Lieberman’s defeat is a victory for the Loonie Left. In her words, “it’s good for us if they’re that stupid.”</p>