Saudis Said to Have Given $10 Million

[frasier]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/14/AR2007121402124_pf.html

Bush on the Saudi's payroll?...think again

 

[jwmorrice]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/14/AR2007121402124_pf.html

Bush on the Saudi's payroll?...think again

All the presidents and both parties seem utterly beholden to big money interests, foreign and domestic. America probably needs a new revolution.

jwm

 

[frasier]

All the presidents and both parties seem utterly beholden to big money interests, foreign and domestic. America probably needs a new revolution.

jwm

THANK YOU

 

[red]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/14/AR2007121402124_pf.html

Bush on the Saudi's payroll?...think again

what are you saying? bush made them do it to discredit Hilary?

 

[Aardvark154]

You and I may have interest in the views of a particular candidate. Big money donors rather have an interest in access. It's all the same to then so long as they aren't harmed or the damage is minimized.

 

[Cinema Face]

It's not too suprising that the US and SA have a good relationship. The world's largest oil producer and the world's largest oil consumer.

However, with friends like Saudi Arabia, who need enemies?

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

THANK YOU

Revolution works, so does campaign finance reform.

The latter seems easier.

 

[frasier]

..so does campaign finance reform.

The latter seems easier.

I agree but you and I may differ on how to get there....personally i would lift all limits but require full disclosure.

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

I agree but you and I may differ on how to get there....personally i would lift all limits but require full disclosure.

We do differ on how to get there.

Lifting limits is a mistake, IMO. If anything, the limits need to be tighter and smaller.

Full disclosure, while necessary, only allows you to see who purchased the candidate. Tighter limits reduces the candidate's purchasability, thereby addressing the root of the problem.

Limits seem to work well here in Canada. There is at least less chance of a politician being purchased.............before gaining office that is.

 

[jwmorrice]

Revolution works, so does campaign finance reform.

The latter seems easier.

Dunno about that. It might take a revolution to get campaign finance reform. But perhaps I'm too pessimistic about the situation south of the border. The US went through a similar sort of corrupt period, 'the gilded age', and their democracy managed to come out of it.

jwm

 

[lookingforitallthetime]

Dunno about that. It might take a revolution to get campaign finance reform. But perhaps I'm too pessimistic about the situation south of the border. The US went through a similar sort of corrupt period, 'the gilded age', and their democracy managed to come out of it.

jwm

The situation won't change without real campaign reform. A process that requires a politician to raise tens of thousands of dollars a week to retain office is inherently flawed.

When money is the deciding factor, mediocrity, not cream rises to the top.

BTW, great sig line.

 

[TOVisitor]

Can someone tell me the point of frasier's post? Does he read the second sentence of the article, or just the headlines?

Clinton Library Got Funds From Abroad
Saudis Said to Have Given $10 Million
By John Solomon and Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, December 15, 2007; A03

Bill Clinton's presidential library raised more than 10 percent of the cost of its $165 million facility from foreign sources, with the most generous overseas donation coming from Saudi Arabia, according to interviews yesterday.

The royal family of Saudi Arabia gave the Clinton facility in Little Rock about $10 million, roughly the same amount it gave toward the presidential library of George H.W. Bush, according to people directly familiar with the contributions.

So instead of his usual anti-Hillary tripe, it's anti-both of them.

What's his point?

 

[jwmorrice]

Can someone tell me the point of frasier's post? Does he read the second sentence of the article, or just the headlines?

So instead of his usual anti-Hillary tripe, it's anti-both of them.

What's his point?

I think his point is, they're all up for sale, not just Bush. Or maybe that's my point and not his!

jwm

 

[markvee]

I agree but you and I may differ on how to get there....personally i would lift all limits but require full disclosure.

I agree.

I think his point is, they're all up for sale

The Bushes? Yes.
The Clintons? Yes.
All? No.

 

[frasier]

I think his point is, they're all up for sale, not just Bush. Or maybe that's my point and not his!

jwm

I could never understand why TOV never get's my point.....Thanks...for a while i thought it was me.