You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #22: Two Points [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
ihavenobias Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Nov-05-07 02:48 PM
Response to Reply #15
22. Two Points
None of the candidates are perfect, and sadly, until we have publicly funded elections we will continue to have special interests influence the behavior of our elected officials rather than the interests of we the people.

With that said, I have a few points:

1)-Again, FDR was RICH. In fact, he was INCREDIBLY rich compared to Edwards. He ran on a campaign that in many ways contradicted his own interests, financially speaking. He was easily the most progressive president in US history, although I can only imagine his detractors making similar arguments at the time (i.e. because he's rich he can't be a populist).

2)-We can't go back in time. The fact is, *all three* of the major candidates had some questionable votes and have contradicted themselves from time to time. Acting as if this is somehow unique to Edwards is being dishonest. Besides, what have they done lately? Hillary's Iran vote was just plain inexcusable and shows to me that she hasn't learned a damn thing since the Iraq vote.

3)-Just look at health care which is a critical issue for just about everybody. For sake of argument, let's say Hillary's plan is the best (I disagree, but let's say it is). The fact that she has taken *the most* money of ANY candidate from the health care industry should be an enormous concern. Seriously, since when did the democrats become the part of Big Business and the Investor Class?

Going back to #1, I don't really care what Edwards does in the stock market in his free time (or what Hillary does for that matter).

They both have enough money, but clearly they want more than money, they want to become president. Therefore if they have to take millions and millions and millions from special interest groups to become president, it's reasonable to assume that their policies will in fact be influenced by those groups once they take office, particularly if they want to stay in office for more than one term. All else being equal, I'll the candidate who at least talks a good populist, strong middle class game (and backs it up with policy proposals) *and* hasn't taken nearly as much money as the front runner (realizing that again, they all have taken *some* special interest money).

www.theyoungturks.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC