Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

People Party vs. Money Party: Who's Who Among the Democrats

By David Sirota, AlterNet. Posted December 4, 2006.


A list of the Democrats who are going to lead the fight for health care, fair trade and labor issues in the New Congress and the Democrats who will fight them.

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

More stories by David Sirota

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

The fact that our nation's politics is divided not between Democrats and Republicans but between the People Party and the Money Party is obvious to anyone who looks at the political system honestly (which is to say, not most journalists or Washington political hacks).  Calls for "bipartisanship" and faux "centrism" that has nothing to do with the actual center of American public opinion are most often moves to prevent the political debate from analyzing the People vs. Money divide that actually fuels our politics. We already have plenty of "bipartisanship" -- Republicans and a faction of Democrats who regularly join hands to screw over the vast majority of Americans.

Many people ask me who? Who are the leading members of both sides of the actual divide? The answer is that there is no official list because no one is forced to formally declare their allegiance to the People Party or the Money Party. But it is fairly obvious which lawmakers in the new majority have specifically defined themselves on economic justice issues.

Though this is by no means a comprehensive list, here are the ones to watch in the coming Congress:

People Party Leaders

Freshman Senators Sherrod Brown (D-OH), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Jon Tester (D-MT) and Jim Webb (D-VA): This is the core group of economic populists who defined the larger populist trend in the 2006 election. Brown has a long record in the House as an economic justice champion, as has Sanders (who I worked for years ago). Tester (pictured above from an event he did here in Helena last night) made his campaign about cleaning up K Street corruption, and Webb has declared that his top issue is going to be addressing the taboo issue of economic inequality.

Sens. Byron Dorgan (D-ND), Russ Feingold (D-WI), Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Dick Durbin (D-IL): Dorgan has been one of the strongest voices against profiteering by the energy and pharmaceutical companies, and has recently written a book called "Take This Job and Ship It," which is one of the strongest declarations against lobbyist-written trade deals from any sitting Senator in recent memory. Similarly, Feingold has voted against every major lobbyist-written trade deal that has come through the Senate, even airing campaign ads on the issue well before that kind of message became more popular. Kennedy, as the incoming chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee is expected to continue his rabid support for the People Party on nearly every economic issue. And Durbin, now the number two Democrat in the Senate, has also had a solid record on trade, and is additionally talking about pushing public financing of elections -- the most effective way to cut off K Street's ability to manipulate Congress.

House Chairpeople George Miller (D-CA), David Obey (D-WI), John Conyers (D-MI), Louise Slaughter (D-NY) and Henry Waxman (D-CA): Miller will now head the Education and Workforce Committee where he is expected to turn his longtime leadership on pension security, wage protection and union organizing rights into legislative action. Obey, who will head the Appropriations Committee (and who I worked for a few years back), will make sure that any budget submitted by the White House that slashes health care, education and labor law enforcement will be dead on arrival, and replaced with a real spending plan that protects people (Obey was the guy who famously authored amendments to slash tax cuts for millionaires in order to better fund these priorities). Conyers will head the Judiciary Committee, which oversees all sorts of regulatory affairs where his pro-consumer record will finally have a chance to shine. Slaughter will chair the powerful Rules Committee -- the panel that governs how the entire chamber operates. She has been an outspoken leader against media consolidation -- one of the toughest issues to champion because the broadcasting industry is so powerful. And finally Waxman will head the Government Reform Committee, where we will now have a chairman who is serious about rooting out the waste, fraud and corruption that has plagued the no-bid Iraq contracts given to President Bush's cronies.

Reps. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH), Tim Ryan (D-OH), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) Nancy Boyda (D-KS), and Bruce Braley (D-IA): Ohio's trio of Kaptur, Ryan and Kucinich have been among the staunchest critics of lobbyist-written trade pacts and advocates for the middle-class agenda in the House. Freshmen Boyda and Braley both ran their campaigns almost exclusively on the trade issue. In Braley's case, the Wall Street Journal noted that he made opposition to the Bush administration's free-trade agenda a centerpiece of his campaign" urging "more focus on labor rights in national trade policy and talked of using economic sanctions to keep America competitive."


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: economic populists, corporate democrats

David Sirota is the author of Hostile Takeover: How Big Money and Corruption Conquered Our Government--and How We Take It Back (Crown, 2006).

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
helpful
Posted by: rsaxto on Dec 4, 2006 3:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a helpful list. Add Peter DeFazio of Oregon to people list

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: helpful Defazio? Posted by: oregoncharles
» Smart Rich vs. Stupid Rich Posted by: Linette
Just read this post on DKos a few hours ago
Posted by: UnEasyOne on Dec 4, 2006 4:34 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Had never heard of you until this weekend when I learned you were Satan Incarnate. Followed a bunch of links, read a bit of what you've written and it turns out that this is the best evidence I've seen of the truth in the old saw about judging a person by the quality of his opposition. I'm fairly new to the net, so your name was my first DK search. Made a couple of comments you might find amusing, other than that, not sure it's worth the bother of wading through 500 or more comments to find mine. (I suspect that if I had made really intelligent arguments against your post you would have made the effort. I found precious little of that however, in all that I read this weekend.) Still, you might be interested to know that I've been defending your positions on various threads when I had no idea who you were. I'm sure you must be somewhat inured to the personal attacks by now and I'm sure you know that they are made by people who can't answer the issues you raise or feel you've attacked their faith (not talking theology here - you know what I mean) so they respond with emotion and vitriol. Keep it up! Ps - Can you link me with a thumbnail bio? Have I seen you before - on the "Newshour" or the like? Thanks

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thanks for the scorecard
Posted by: hagwind on Dec 4, 2006 4:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have been having trouble recognizing the players without a scorecard -- or maybe the real trouble is that I have trouble paying attention long enough to make my own scorecard. Much of the time, "Democrats vs. Republicans" and "liberals vs. conservatives" aren't useful distinctions (though there does seem to be a big overlap between "Republicans" and "members of the Money Party"). In other words, thanks for this article. It's a keeper.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How do you spell p-o-l-i-t-i-c-i-a-n?????
Posted by: greentime on Dec 4, 2006 5:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Time WILL tell.

I wish I were hopeful. Until I hear a resounding commitment for saving the planet, I know there is no commitment to help the people.

If the dems fight over splinter issues and act divisively then we all better get on our knees and hope some other country's government cares enough about us to give us some leadership.

Yes, it's THAT serious.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I WANT lists
Posted by: UnEasyOne on Dec 4, 2006 5:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The main criticism I read of this post on DK was that you were posting "enemies lists." Putting aside the negative and inaccurate Nixonian inference, the point I'd like to make is that I'd like to see lists of every Dem who supports a piece of bad legislation or opposes good legislation posted on every progressive website immediatly. That way they can be reminded that the corporate interests may have cash, but come primary day, we have the votes. It's activists who vote in primaries - the people who will be most interested in these lists. Might encourage some of these leaners to see the light if they are flooded with calls and e-mails after every regressive vote.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I WANT lists Posted by: badkitty
» how they voted wrongly in the past Posted by: Lincoln fan
» 'THE LIST' IS LONG OVERDUE Posted by: Repeat After Me
The "People" Party, The "Money" Party and The AIPAC Party
Posted by: Douglas on Dec 4, 2006 5:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sirota does an excellent job of delineating the differences between the "people party" Democrats and the "money party" Democrats and of identifying the most influential respective members of each group. He fails, however, to point out that all of the Democratic Senators and Congresspersons, whether they belong to the "people party" or to the "money party" are members of the AIPAC party, and that they have all taken the money and support of the Israeli Lobby in return for their pledges of uncritical and unwavering support for the policies of the Israeli government, no matter what those policies might be. Could Sirota's failure to ever point this out in any of his many writings about how special interest groups influence our politics have anything at all to do with the fact that he was himself once an employee of AIPAC?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Thank You
Posted by: No Neos on Dec 4, 2006 5:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Your Definitions of People vs Money really help to clarify things. It is a great idea and well worth getting out there! I hope the media picks it up and runs with it because it could help put the presure on our representatives to more clearly define themselves to us in ways that will be more representative. I read about leanings I did not know about before and am now a bit disillusioned with Sen. Obama. Of course, "People's Party" equates to "Commie" to many in America and could be used by the "Money Party" to discredit it. I hope most Americans are smarter than this. Thanks again for boiling it down for us all. Less IS more!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Thank You Posted by: laoma
Interesting, but deeply flawed list
Posted by: xi_people on Dec 4, 2006 5:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I regard this list as an initial attempt to inform committed progressives exactly who is on their side, and who isn't. Such an exercise might finally shine a light on the harsh reality that politicians in the former group are few and far in between. Those who were thinking that a democratic takeover of CONgress was going to herald a "new era" are going to be deeply disillusioned at the actual results.

What ruined this list for me was a quick look at the "swing" list; ostensibly naming those who could "lean" either way. Two of those names, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, are bona fide members of the "Money" group. They are also among the most mentioned as candidates for president in 2008. By raising doubt as to their true allegiance, Sirota is pulling a "con job" himself -- one undoubtedly aimed at making both of them more palatable to progressives, when all the really deserve is to be reviled.

Charlie Rangel might vote like a member of the "People" group, but is firmly in the other camp. He's nothing but a Trojan horse against the true Left, and is used by the elite to introduce legislation which works against the masses - like the draft - and is provided cover by naive progressives who cite his long "support" for progressive causes. Don't be fooled.

Kerry, Dodd and Bayh also belong to the "Money" group - make no mistake about it. I don't know enough about Baucus to render an informed judgement.

The bottom line: there are pitifully few legislators who actually advocate for the peoples' best interests. Those that do have no power. The warmongers in the DLC/DNC mode are the ones in total control. Sirota's list, a clever bit of subterfuge in my estimation, actually shows why no changes will occur, why the occupation in Iraq will continue unabated, and why legislation with a democratic CONgress will continue to favor the rich over the poor and the middle class.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

NOT a peoples' party person...
Posted by: xenacat on Dec 4, 2006 6:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is very clear which direction Hilary Clinton "leans" - she is big money and entrenched power all the way. This woman's loyality is to herself and no one else. She definitely belongs on the other side...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: NOT a peoples' party person... Posted by: Kitty Lady Oregon
Why not make it official?
Posted by: smendler on Dec 4, 2006 6:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just as the unnatural coalition of the Repubs ought to be split - the 'Christian' evangelicals on the one hand, the 'Mammonist' financial/business interests on the other - so the centrist/moneyed/DLC wing of the Democrats ought to be splitoff from the more progressive Wellstone wing. The DLC'ers could get up with disaffected moderate Republicans like Lincoln Chaffee and create a true centrist party, and the Wellstone folks could make a social democratic party with some real impact. Both of these are sorely needed.

Then the next step, of course, would be to recraft the political system to facilitate a true multiparty democracy.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Why not make it official? Posted by: Steve Adair
» RE: Why not make it official? Posted by: oregoncharles
Add Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack to the "Money Party" list
Posted by: sausage on Dec 4, 2006 7:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This political chameleon plays the people's champion on the stump but has never met a corporate donation he could refuse. Vilsack brags about expanding health cares insurance for Iowa's children, but if you're over 18 forget it. He approved, without a hint of embarassment, a $3 million grant to Wells-Fargo, the multi-billion dollar banking industry giant, for a parking lot for its new West Des Moines, IA regional headquarters. The only bill I can remember Democratic Governor Vilsack vetoing, with little demur from the Republican dominated Statehouse, was one legalizing morning dove hunting sponsored by Democrats!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Incomplete
Posted by: NoPCZone on Dec 4, 2006 7:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would add Representative Ed Markey (D) of Mass.

Take a look at the ranking of his record in Congress HERE

He is fighting the good fight and has been for quite a while.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Now about those other things . . .
Posted by: JCR on Dec 4, 2006 8:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Now, what's missing from this fine list:

1) Green or even moderately "eco-tolerant" lawmakers. Bye bye biodiversity, hello desertification. The US just doesn't fucking get it. Our continued survival depends on the gifts of the earth. When will population control be addressed? I also propose a painful yet necessary 2-year commercial fishing moratorium? Kyoto anyone?

2) For the love of god, when will someone address our defense spending? It's great to talk about limiting CEO salaries but our military spending (and profligate consumerism) is going a long way towards bankrupting the country. How much longer are we going to persist with pie in the sky projects like ABM's or nanobot hornets that kill people? Or we could just talk about the US penchant for warmongering? Maybe Dems don't want to talk about it because they voted for war too.

3) Lawmakers that are committed to alternative energy sources. We won't have learned a thing from the occupation of Iraq if a Democratic OR Republican president marches us back into the deserts of the ME or the jungles of Venezuela because we can't fuel our precious F-350's. Dare I mention pressuring America's auto makers into producing much more fuel efficient vehicles?

4) Reprogramming American minds in relation to our lifestyles - including but not limited to:

a) Saving rather than spending (there's a novel idea).
b) Work less, consume less ... get to know your families again.
c) Encourage Americans to volunteer more. They tried a similar campaign a few years ago but I think it could be resuscitated and reintroduced in a different form. Perhaps it would have been more effective had it not been for Bush reminding us of the importance of "helping others" while simultaneously invading a sovereign country and wrecking the lives of so many there.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Money Party: Both Arkansas Senators
Posted by: sprachenlehrer on Dec 4, 2006 8:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Senator Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas is DEFINITELY a Money Party Member. Her receipt of contributions from the pharmaceutical industry ranks her in the top ten. Senator Mark Pryor is no better, voting against the People a majority of the time. On the other hand Representative Vic Snyder is of the People Party.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Great post,but do you know who really runs it all?
Posted by: topview on Dec 4, 2006 8:24 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Mr Sirota explained some good ideas of who represents the people and who leans to
the money interests of our government.,but if you really want to know what is going on
and who really runs it all,you have to go to Wayne Madsens website and read the article
by Sibel Edmonds (The Ex FBI translator turned WhistleBlower). I have entered
here the first two Paragraphs and the last three of her article. To read the whole
article go to

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Real Leaders of Both Sides
Posted by: mite on Dec 4, 2006 9:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
are members of the Federal Reserve and banks that collect the interest from debt. While these traitors (Congress) keep feeding us propaganda the citizens labor are taxed to pay Only the interest on loans our Congress get from these bank Cartels.
Article 1 Section 8- Congress shall coin and regulate value not a private corporation, monopoly. The Sherman Antitrust Act prohibits a monopoly, has two elements: possession of a monopoly power in relevant market and willful acquisition or maintenance of that power... www.apfn.org/APFN/money2.htm
If you go to Lewis vs. US, case #80-5905, 9th Circuit, June 24, 1982 you will find in part: Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the federal reserve are NOT federal instrumentality's...but are independent and privately owned and controlled corporations...
This December 23, 2006 the federal reserve act of 1913 will celebrate its 93rd birthday followed by its gestopo SS `IRS' that is illegal as the '16th Amendment' was not ratified by the states of this republic, and is a direct violation of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights- taxes are volunteer not mandated by the IRS tax code.
www.originalintent.org www.givemeliberty.org www.freedomtofascism.com

Do the research Congress and citizens, Congress read the bills put before you- do not vote until you read these bills and laws.

Suggestion America read Democracy OR Republic Which Is It? by Benedict D. LaRosa
www.devvy.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Utah's "D" Matheson--$$$$
Posted by: hayduke1 on Dec 4, 2006 9:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
it's all about the money for this "democrat" from the land of Deseret

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

add to the people list
Posted by: llamadama on Dec 4, 2006 9:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I would add Representative Carol Shea Porter's name to the People's List. Her upset victories in the NH primary and general election overcame very well-funded opponents, with the GOP incumbent a strong Money man. Hopefully, she can maintain her populism in DC, as her many grassroots supporters hope.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: add to the people list Posted by: oregoncharles
Missing names
Posted by: bobconway on Dec 4, 2006 10:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I concur with most of this article. Interestingly a few notable names seem to be missing from any of these lists, including that of Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California. I wonder why. I would consider her to be People Party or leaning strongly that way.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's time for a new Independent party
Posted by: MonkeyBoy on Dec 4, 2006 10:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All those who truly identify with the "people" must shed the yoke of Republican and Democratic Party corporate control and start a new party that is truly for the "people". Not much will change in this country until that happens. It needs to start now, in order to be a viable party in 2008. The populist movement in the 2006 elections should give hope to all those who wish change. Lou Dobbs for president, anyone?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Who is Sirota?
Posted by: rwa on Dec 4, 2006 10:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ashley Smith excerpt posted at counterpunch.org:

"Sanders staffers have also worked with the American Israeli Political Action Committee (AIPAC)--including David Sirota, now a Democratic Party strategist, and Sanders' former communications director Joel Barkin.

... In perhaps his worst betrayal yet, Sanders joined a host of liberal Democrats including Barbara Lee and John Conyers to vote for HR 282, the Iran Freedom Support Act--which bears a striking resemblance to the resolutions that set up the framework for the war on Iraq.

The act stipulates that the U.S. should impose sanctions on Iran to prevent it from developing weapons of mass destruction and distributing them to aid international terrorism. It also calls for the U.S. to support democratic change in the country, thereby establishing all necessary pretexts for a war on Iran. Democrat Dennis Kucinich voted against the act and denounced it as a "stepping stone to war."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Voters 4 Peace
Posted by: rwa on Dec 4, 2006 10:38 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
National "Mandate for Peace" Call-in Day: Monday, December 4

Call your Representative and Senators and tell them:
“Stop Funding War! Bring Our Troops Home NOW!”

On Election Day, voters signaled to Congress that we we want a new direction and we are ready to bring our troops home. Members of Congress return to Washington DC on Monday, December 4, to determine their legislative priorities for the session. Let's greet Congress with a flood of phone calls to remind them that we want our troops to come home from Iraq. We need to make sure that Congress puts Iraq as a top priority for the new session-- together we will make sure this is an issue that Congress cannot ignore!

WHAT: Call your members of Congress to tell them to stop funding the war-- bring the troops home NOW!
WHEN: Monday, December 4
HOW: Call the Capitol Switchboard (202-224-3121) and ask for the office of your members of Congress

The death toll and carnage in Iraq is increasing at an alarming rate. Our soldiers are caught in the middle of a civil war unleashed by an administration that refused to plan for postwar reconstruction and failed to understand Iraqi culture and history. Congress has the power to end the U.S. occupation of Iraq, and if it fails to do so, we will hold them responsible for the continued violence in Iraq.

The current congress and the administration have used too many excuses for inaction. They have sat and waited for the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group report, the Pentagon study group report, the White House study group... the excuses go on and on. We already know what we want, so let's tell them they can no longer delay bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

There all on the money list!!!
Posted by: Conservasaurus on Dec 4, 2006 10:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To say it's unclear which way Hillary leans the author is in some sort of denial ..Hillary has one of the best money machines "right or left" and there are alot of special interests they are indebted to! She leans to the direction of the money!

Ted Kennedy ..who cares which way he leans, he's an embarrassment and only Mass could keep electing him.. from a family of crooks and a degenerate himself.. how fast people forget - Chappaquiddick, the rape incident involving him and his nephew in his Fla home ..lord knows what else.. he doesnt need any money sources ..his family stole all he needs.. ( I have to admit, I liked JFK alot)

Lieberman - the people of Ct. spoke –Sirota backed the wrong guy –

Kerry..– depends on the day and issue and which side he feels like arguing on that day.. - I think it’s fair to say he’s not sure which way he leans.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: There all on the money list!!! Posted by: oregoncharles
» RE: There all on the money list!!! Posted by: Conservasaurus
This is a good starting point
Posted by: SufiLizard on Dec 4, 2006 12:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I disagree with putting Hillary on the fence, like many posters I think she is decisively in the Money group.

Evan Bayh has always been there too, although he's starting to talk more like a People Democrat now that he's running (not announced officially yet) for president. I have a lot of reasons to WANT to like Evan, but I just don't trust him.

I like David Sirota a lot. He really has some good insights about Democratic politics and We The People versus They The Monied.

Sure he doesn't talk much about the environment and maybe he ignores some important issues about the Israeli lobby. But the things he has to say about his "pet" issues are things America desperately needs to hear.

Nobody's 100 percent right 100 percent of the time. I'm sure you can find fault with Mr. Sirota, and I can too, but if I wanted someone who agreed with me on everything and placed the same emphasis on every issue that I would, I would have to do some cloning.

Personally I find David Sirota a very valuable resource. And I'm glad he's out there doing what he's doing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

No to Fake Left: Hillary and Obama, ie: Expensive Whores
Posted by: sofla100 on Dec 4, 2006 3:42 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't quite understand the desire to give some wiggle room to Obama and Hillary. Obama has ties with big oil and lobbyists are already lining up behind him. Hillary is pathetic. Your talking big banks, insurance companies, and after flip-flopping on bankruptcy reform, she has proven she is for sale. She is also one of GW's big Iraq debacle supporters and now is backpedelling. As for AIPAC, they both could be honorary members of the Knesset. But, what is the deal here, is this a fake Left move on Alternet to make these two palatable, the "people's candidates"? At least with Repubs., we know they are whores, as flagrant as any streetwalker could be, but these Dems. playing games are sad indeed! Also, we have the packaging of Obama going on, he is going to be big oil and big pharma's guy in no time.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

brazen
Posted by: EZJ on Dec 4, 2006 5:08 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I may have been turned, fairly or not, during the course of this article.

Dems, Reps, screw them both.

Yet, Sirota made, what I felt, to be some good points.

But, I want the AIPAC thing addressed. Now.

Is this man so ego driven that he does not even check the responses to an article that he produces?

Come now. Address your ties to the AIPAC, or simply stop posting. Because the questions will be hammered from now on, and your audience will certainly be deferred.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

PLAYERS for the VAMPIRE STATE
Posted by: Hal on Dec 4, 2006 6:32 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A worthwhile list. However – and it’s an immense however, Sirota again fails to deal with the core issue.

D. Sirota’s worldview is based on the single phony assumption that a so-called “money party” is merely some loose gang of random corporate snakes with offensive sway over Washington and the MSM.

At a side-street level issue, this is certainly true. But there is a far more vital master reality that people like Sirota at the Limited Hangout “left” do not and will not touch.

That is the fact that the entire bad theatre at a poodle DC and its MSM carnival barker is at work for a criminal and well organized de facto CORPORATE CARTEL PSYOPS STATE (henceforth the CCPS). You could also call this a Corporate Monopoly State. Or if you’d like to get a bit more darkly poetic about it (but no less accurate) – a Vampire State.

At the risk of repetition: privately owned corporate bunko shams like the “Federal Reserve” Corporation (that was never federal and without reserves of any kind) the World Bank and so on are prime visible instruments of the CCPS over a brothel of a Washington and MSM complex. The power to counterfeit private fiat money to force-feed it to the world in trade for real debt loads and interest is the power of a vampire class over human life. This is criminally institutionalized power over life and death from America and Britain to the 3rd world.

Put another way, to suppose the most lethal and vicious oligarchs among us simply folded their tents at the end of the Gilded Age and went away is well beyond naïve. Such a dim-witted worldview has less than no connection to human nature or the historical record.

In an excerpt from her essay on John Perkins useful work “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man” Catherine Austin Fitts (former Assistant Secretary for Housing and Director of Dillon Reid) lays out the case for corporate crime rule she refers to as “The Real Economic Hit Men”:

“Perkins delivers to readers the "big lie": he reveals the secret that there is no greater conspiracy. This is simply globalization run amok, he would have us believe. Somehow, this particular conspiracy theory seems charmingly credible as part of a "confession." Perkins admits to what is known and then uses the credibility created by his "limited hangout" to further obscure the reality of who's who in the real governance of global investment and risk management. We are to presume that the investment networks in and around the Harvard Corporation, the City of London, the Vatican and investment managers and bankers for the proceeds of transnational organized crime are simply good-hearted fellows who let things get out of hand.
Nowhere does Perkins introduce the notion that cartels in a "New World Order" (the phrase coined and promoted by George H. W. Bush) use covert manipulation of the global financial system to centralize and concentrate economic and political power.”


Without a genuine understanding of the system as it is versus how it’s sold, there can be no real understanding of the surface moves out of Washington or of its lapdog players.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Continuation of Hal's Vampire Piece
Posted by: rwa on Dec 4, 2006 7:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The Bush family considers itself among the special chosen ones if based only on its royal heritage. The family is connected by blood to every European monarch on and off the throne including every member of the British House of Windsor. That relationship is more than familial and extends to the president's father having close business dealings with Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Phillip who themselves are connected to the notorious Carlyle Group that also employs GHW Bush as a "senior consultant" and master-rainmaker/fixer-arranger at a very high price for his services.

George W. Bush, of course, is in the bloodline and is a distant cousin of the Queen and Prince Charles. This American "royal" family traces its heritage back to 15th century Britain at the time of Henry VIII or earlier, but its royal connection is not unique to Washington politicos as both Al Gore and John Kerry also have familial ties to the British crown, and ironically Gore is a distant cousin of his former presidential rival from having been a direct descendant of Charlemagne when he was emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. Truth is indeed stranger or at least more ironic than fiction.

The modern-era Bush family dynasty goes back four generations and was connected to the military-industrial complex of its day during and after WW I much like the most recent two Bush generations are to the present one."

sjlendman.blogspot.com.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Continuation of Hal's Vampire Piece
Posted by: rwa on Dec 4, 2006 7:23 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The Bush family considers itself among the special chosen ones if based only on its royal heritage. The family is connected by blood to every European monarch on and off the throne including every member of the British House of Windsor. That relationship is more than familial and extends to the president's father having close business dealings with Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Phillip who themselves are connected to the notorious Carlyle Group that also employs GHW Bush as a "senior consultant" and master-rainmaker/fixer-arranger at a very high price for his services.

George W. Bush, of course, is in the bloodline and is a distant cousin of the Queen and Prince Charles. This American "royal" family traces its heritage back to 15th century Britain at the time of Henry VIII or earlier, but its royal connection is not unique to Washington politicos as both Al Gore and John Kerry also have familial ties to the British crown, and ironically Gore is a distant cousin of his former presidential rival from having been a direct descendant of Charlemagne when he was emperor of the Holy Roman Empire. Truth is indeed stranger or at least more ironic than fiction.

The modern-era Bush family dynasty goes back four generations and was connected to the military-industrial complex of its day during and after WW I much like the most recent two Bush generations are to the present one."

sjlendman.blogspot.com.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

money trumps democracy
Posted by: yurbud on Dec 4, 2006 9:06 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is why we are still in a war that not only the majority of Iraqis and the majority of our troops oppose, but the majority of Americans oppose.

What percentage of opposition does it take to a policy business likes before our elected representatives actually represent us? 70%? 80%? 99.999%?

We don't have a true democracy when money trumps voters, and skews the system so that by the time someone gets to the level of senator or president, we usually only have a choice of the corporate candidate with nuts or the one without.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The People's Dem. Party might trump them both
Posted by: 1Eco. on Dec 5, 2006 6:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I wouldn't short this country, it's people, or it's currency just yet. In fact I see the potential for more and more progressive awareness and the desire for improvement across the board. It will mean a total change in real leadership but the people maybe ready.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bob Casey
Posted by: Phenix on Dec 6, 2006 8:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I believe the author missed out on Bob Casey. He is not for abortion but he sits with the people on every economic issue that is out there right now.

He is pro labor, anti FTA, pro-card check, anti-Bush tax cut, and some other things that i can't think of off the top of my head.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Kucinich Gets It
Posted by: Repeat After Me on Dec 7, 2006 10:02 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Kucinich: At this point the Democratic leadership—the speaker and the majority leader and Rahm Emanuel—are all recommending that the Democrats support the appropriation that is going to be brought forward in the spring, for the purposes of [continuing to fund] the war in Iraq.

Truthdig: What can people do?

Kucinich: The most difficult part of the challenge is to get members of Congress to understand that they themselves voted for a bill which went into effect on Oct. 1 that appropriated $70 billion, which could be used to bring the troops home.

Truthdig: For me this is really disheartening, because I feel like I have been lied to, and the American people have been lied to, because the [Democratic] Party was so against extra funds for the war. It’s almost like the party has done a bait-and-switch.

Kucinich: Unfortunately, our leadership is saying they’re supporting the supplemental as a way of supporting the troops. This is going to shape up as a major discussion across this country. People are going to want to know why Democrats would not bring the troops home now, when the money is there now.I think a lot of people are going to be very surprised to learn that less than one month since this great realignment, that Democrats leaders, who came to power because of widespread opposition to the war in Iraq, are now saying that they will vote to continue funding the war.

Truthdig: Is there any hope to end the war now, and not go for the supplemental funds?

Kucinich: I think it is going to be a serious test of the Democratic Party. We were put in power because people expected a new direction. If we support the troops, why in the world would we not use the money to bring them home, instead of spending more money to keep them in? It's important for people to contact their member of Congress, and to let the member of Congress know how they feel. The people are also going to have to work their e-mail lists to pass the word. We have men and women who are dying there, and for what?

[ Truthdig.Com ]

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"People" Party ... really?
Posted by: halg on Dec 11, 2006 1:17 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I do not have universal health care like people living in most of the developed nations (not to mention a lot of nations that are not developed at all!), our best jobs are being shipped overseas (after flooding the employment market with so-called "cheap" imported labor, a kick in the head to them and me), Wal-Marts continue to pop up everywhere (even when local communities fight them), corporate profits continue to spiral upward while our government considers a raise in the minimum wage from one unlivable level to an even higher unlivable level, and on and on and on.

When democrats HAVE been in power, what did they do for me? They have held power at various times since 1979, yet real purchasing power for American workers has been dwindling since that same year. They have had opportunities, albeit brief perhaps, but chose to do nothing.

However, there IS a possibility, if one can just let go of the duopoly paradigm for one damn moment and seriously consider choice ranked balloting and proportional representation. This will allow the Green Party (truly a non-corporate party) and other (truly) progressive parties have a say in government (which I believe is supposed to represent all of us, including me). It will help to clean up politics in general since it forces parties to coalesce on issues, including those leading to elections. It works in Germany, Ireland, and other countries, so why can't we have it here too?

Why? Simple. The duopoly ("republocrats") like it this way. They have maintained their power and control over the people this way for 2 centuries (and actually even before that). They will not favor a truly democratic system of elections that would threaten their truly undemocratic system of sausage- (aka law-) making and domestic terrorism against an uneducated and muted public. If you don't believe this, chance a read of Zinn's "People's History of the US". It may open some eyes to the reality of the "good" party, and its constituent "good" factions. The 2 parties have an equal history of committing evil.

Are other countries that have ranked choice voting better than us? I don't know how much better or worse off people are there as the result of more democratic elections. But I suspect that since every vote counts under RCV, it makes sense that their publics (especially minority groups) are at least represented somehow in their legislatures.

The debate here between the "good" dems and the "Bad" dems is irrelevant. Until the democratic party stops lining their pockets with the same filthy corporate funding as their alleged "opponents," they will forever be bitches for whatever might be demanded by the Halliburtons, Wal-marts, drug companies, etc.

It's time for a change in how we choose candidates when we go to the ballot box. Let's stop with these unending and useless debates about Dems Vs. Republicans. Push for Ranked Choice Voting (see fairvote.org for a starter ...)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Vote Kucinich for 2008!
Posted by: lotus23 on Dec 11, 2006 4:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Folks, now is our big chance. Dennis Kucinich threw his hat in the race for 2008. He's a true progressive who is right on all the issues.

I think that the biggest mistake that progressives made in 2004 was to go behind Howard Dean in the Democratic primary. Dean admits that he is a "triangulator" on economic issues. He described his views on the Middle East as "same as Clinton's" and "closer to AIPAC than to PeaceNow."

Kucinich wants a more even-handed approach to the conflict. He wants to create a Department of Peace. He's against capital punishment. He's for universal health care. All on down the issues, he's progressive in good times and tough times.

Of course people will say he can't win. But if progressives put their solid support and passion behind him, he could prove everyone wrong, the way Howard Dean proved everyone wrong in the first half of the 2004 primary. At the very least, he could set the agenda for the Democratic party. All the Democratic establishment mocked Dean's "50 state election strategy"...then the Dems won! He proved them wrong. Imagine if we put our efforts behind Kucinich, then the Democratic Party could look more like the Green Party.

We can't again miss this opportunity to take back the Democratic Party.

Oh...and it doesn't hurt that he's from a swing state!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dennis Kucinich: A hero of the progressive movement
Posted by: Stop bush now on Dec 11, 2006 11:51 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
His most publicized issue of the moment is his adamant opposition to the war in Iraq. He has supported an immediate withdrawal and wants to pull the plug on the annual $400 billion of funding for the war.

Nearly every other politician opposes such a tactic for fear of being accused of ' Not supporting the troops'
In fact, cutting funding would force the military to pull them out altogether, making them MORE SAFE !
Kucinich is vehemently opposed to invading Iran, urges scrapping corruptible electronic voting machines and returning to PAPER BALLOTS, and supports universal health care.
The Kucinich candidacy will make his views more public through debates and grassroots movements, more importantly...other candidates will finally be forced to acknowledge them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Answering to the people
Posted by: 1Eco. on Dec 19, 2006 7:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Is the way to win and stay in the People's Party.

Answering to Big Money Interests puts you with the Money Party.

Not all people who have savings, or assets, support the MONEY Party or their objectives.

This happens on a local level first with clean elections. check your state and become a part of the solution.

http://www.publicampaign.org/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]