It would appear, Wyatt, that my hypocrisy knows no bounds.
I know it's so stereotypical of conservatives to blast the Clintons but I just couldn't pass this chance up. My comments are italicized.
Clinton uses Pederson fundraiser to blast GOP
Former president Bill Clinton keynoted a Phoenix Democratic fundraiser Thursday evening, saying the Republican Party is dominated by "right-wing, white Southerners." (I guess the first "black" president is now throwing down the race card. Is "Southerners" supposed to be a slur in this context? I suppose he would hate the South with so many women down here taking him to court for harrassment... )
Clinton also hit the GOP for favoring the rich and practicing "crony capitalism". (Like for instance, offering pardons to rich, white party donors named Mark... oops! That was you, wasn't it, Bill?)
Clinton headlined a fundraiser for Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Jim Pederson at the Arizona Biltmore Resort & Spa. (You caught that, didn't you. A fundraiser at a Resort & Spa - Doesn't sound like those poor, multicultural Democrats are doing too badly for themselves, huh?)
The event was attended by 500 persons and raised approximately $500,000 for Pederson, who is challenging incumbent U.S. Sen. Jon Kyl in November. Pederson is a shopping center developer, former Arizona Democratic Party chairman and an ally of Clinton and his wife Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y. (The Pederson campaign is going to great lengths to sell their candidate as a man of the people - but guess what he is... another rich white guy. I guess southern really is the slur since the DNC loves rich, white guys... Not surprising that Pederson is a friend of the Clintons - they LOVE real estate developers.)
Clinton criticized Republicans and the Bush administration for running up federal deficits while approving tax cuts for the wealthy. Pederson pointed out that Kyl is a top ally of President Bush on Capitol Hill. (Lest we forget that Clinton inherited an economy already on the mend from Bush 41, and a Republican congress that balanced the budget. I'm not happy with Bush 43 being a shop-a-holic with my tax dollars but let's at least be honest about where the Clinton era economic success really came from.)
The Kyl campaign and Republicans have countered such criticisms by linking Pederson to national Democrats, including Mrs. Clinton, Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean and Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass. (Well, this $500 a plate fundraiser doesn't do much to propagate the myth that the Dems "feel the pain" of the middle and lower class, now does it?)
The Kyl campaign on Thursday also faulted Clinton for not dedicating enough resources and money to border security. Democrats have voiced similar criticisms of Kyl and the Bush administration. (Blah-blah-blah - both sides lose on border security...)
The former Democratic president faulted Republicans and the Bush White House for no-bid government contracts, deficits and a Medicare drug benefit program that does not allow the federal government to negotiate lower prescription prices. (ROFLMBO - no-bid contracts are more routine than anyone wants to admit and were they were throughout the Clinton era also. Medicare drug benefits - it's easy to criticize someone who actually passes a bill you couldn't get through Congress, isn't it WJC?)
Democrats have also attempted to make political gains this election season in light of lobbying and ethics scandals in Washington D.C. (Yes - yes the culture of corruption that is so one-sided... ho hum (yawn))
Clinton also voiced support for raising the minimum wage above the $5.15 per hour federal baseline. Pederson supports a state ballot question to raise the minimum wage. Kyl has not taken a stance on that state measure but has voted against Democratic efforts to raise the federal pay level. (This is either blatant pandering, inexcuseable ignorance, or intentional malice. Raising the minimum wage does nothing to get people out of poverty. Absolutely nothing! Check the figures to see if the percentage of Americans below poverty changes when the MW is raised. Nope. Stays relatively stable within the 9-11% range. Why? Wages go up. Prices go up to compensate for businesses being forced to pay more to employees. You think businesses take profit losses to meet the payroll demands of a raised MW? Wage increases are not the same as an increase in VALUE of the dollar.)
The Kyl campaign pointed out that President Bush hosted a fundraiser for Kyl at the Biltmore last year that raised $1.6 million, said spokesman Andy Chasin. Kyl has also gotten fundraising help from California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Vice President Dick Cheney. (Wow - you want some votes, Senator Kyl? Hand that money over to a contractor to build a darn fence on the border and you'll have more votes than you can count. The voices coming out of Arizona sound vehemently in favor of some border enforcement.)
The Pederson fundraiser featured top state Democrats, including Gov. Janet Napolitano and Phoenix Congressman Ed Pastor.
Comment(s) »
» Leave a comment
- Your E-mail address is never displayed. If you enter it, it will only be visible to the blog author
- Since there already are comments to this post, your eventual comment might trigger a notification e-mail to the persons that commented before you.
- The line and paragraph breaks automatically
Great post, Cate!
A couple of additions, if I may:
saying the Republican Party is dominated by "right-wing, white Southerners." Clinton's merely envious because he couldn't swing the Democratic party to be dominated by those same right-wing, white Southerners... like, himself.
Clinton criticizing the Republicans always makes me laugh, because he did his darnedest to turn the Democrats INTO Republicans.
Wage increases are not the same as an increase in VALUE of the dollar.
100 SMART POINTS to you on this one!!! Unfortunately, after adjusting for inflation, that only amounts to 15.24 smart points in today's currency.
We live in a country where the devaluation of currency is official fiscal policy. The debate seems to be centered only on how quickly to allow it to spiral down to worthlessness.
Instead of arguing for minimum wage, Democrats, ask why the ratio of CEO compensation to average worker salary (note- a ratio, so devoid of any questions of currency, inflation, or even job sector) has gone from about 70 to 1 in 1989 to over 431 to 1 in 2004. Are CEO's doing six times as much work as they did in 1989? Are average workers doing 1/6th the work?
Comment by Michael— 2006/06/02 @ 02:32 PM — (Reply)
I'll wager those 15.24 smart points that most Americans are more alike WRT economic philosophy than the liberal/conservative monikers would suggest.
Although the far left's leaning toward communism in recent years is frightening.
Comment by Cate— 2006/06/02 @ 05:38 PM — (Reply)
Might depend on how you define communism...
...and all who believed were together and had all things in common; and they sold their possessions and belongings and distributed the proceeds to all, as any had need.
(Acts 2:44-45)
Comment by Michael— 2006/06/02 @ 07:51 PM — (Reply)
It's the difference between making love and being raped, Michael.
There is no comparison between the law of consecration and communism.
Comment by Cate— 2006/06/02 @ 08:07 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Cate— 2006/06/02 @ 08:11 PM — (Reply)
Exactly, Cate. Forcing someone to follow your own personal morality is usually wrong. Laws do not make people good, or charitable, or moral.
Comment by Michael— 2006/06/02 @ 08:15 PM — (Reply)
And yet, We do force men to contribute. We force people without children to fund public education. We force people opposed to war to fund the military. We force people making barely enough to feed their families to fund shelters for meth junkies.
But we are not allowed to acknowledge that some behaviors are innately contrary to the good of society?
When men are flawed, so always will be their system of government. Best to argue the here and now because , frankly, our ideals will only be achieved through an act of God.
Comment by Cate— 2006/06/02 @ 08:22 PM — (Reply)
Well, I don't think I've hidden my liberal bias... if so, I apologize.
Beautifully said, and if I haven't mentioned it before, I really do admire the concise and clear way you express your ideas. A gift that I (obviously) lack myself.
I see the word "good" being used for two different meanings. "Good" on a personal level refers to the moral code that we are endowed with from our Creator, and no law will ever make a person 'good' in this sense. A good person needs no laws. They act from selflessness and charity as a consequence of their relationship to God. All are flawed, but even with those flaws, right action is understood implicitly.
But 'good' on a societal level is necessity, what we need for a healthy exchange between individuals as a collective. Laws are the mutually agreed minimums we expect of each other. But if a person's limits consist of only what is and isn't against the law, then they can not be good. They are not facing the intrinsic personal choice to act with God.
Laws are what we agree everyone needs to do. They do not, and cannot dictate what any given person should do. That is the realm of the soul.
Comment by Michael— 2006/06/02 @ 08:53 PM — (Reply)
Honestly, I can't foresee a healthy exchange. I keep hearing an altered version of the popular 60s folksong in my head "Where have all the moderates gone? Long time passing..."
I used to have faith that there was a silent majority of people with consistently decent values. That the loudest voices shouted for lack of numbers. Increasingly, I find myself mistaken in that perception and I do not know anymore that people believe in compromise. There are those who shout from both fringes and the rest seem either hopelessly or cynically apathetic.
Truth be told, I always considered myself a moderate until the sands started shifting leftward and I found myself with a voice. Politics is the work of men not God and I don't believe that belonging to one party or another is a matter of morality. However, I could not ally myself with a party that openly endorses acts contrary to my faith, even issues of private morality.
You know that private morality is a prerequisite for the continuance of a successful America. In the 1800s, Alexis De Tocqueville knew it. We cannot succeed in this democratic experiment if individual morality does not inhibit what absolute freedom allows.
It is a sad state that has to regulate morality because her people choose not to regulate themselves.
Comment by Cate— 2006/06/02 @ 09:27 PM — (Reply)
Not sure if you are referring to society in general, or with me personally. I think I may have strained my welcome here beyond politeness, and I'll be happy to take my leave with all due apologies for the intrusion.
Comment by Michael— 2006/06/02 @ 09:54 PM — (Reply)
Michael - you are more than welcome here. I've appreciated the conversation immensely.
I didn't see your comment last night ... you are always welcome.
I meant, of course, society at large. The national conversation is so filled with expletives and bitterness. I think the country could do with a lot more conversations like ours.
For future reference, I'm on the east coast so I tend to walk away from the blog abruptly when I realize it's after midnight
Comment by Cate - oops I forgot to log in!— 2006/06/03 @ 07:54 AM — (Reply)
no gulags in the Bible Michael - unless you count being in the garden with a single female
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/06/02 @ 07:58 PM — (Reply)
gulags are Stalinism... State-run "communism" has given the theory a bad name, sadly.
communism in the ideal is a good thing. EB's recommended book, "Mere Christianity" makes this point pretty clearly. If people devoted their lives truly towards a Christian good, they could hardly be anything BUT communist.
Comment by Michael— 2006/06/02 @ 08:10 PM — (Reply)
I still think living with a lone female in a garden runs pretty close to a gulag (especially during PMS)
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/06/02 @ 08:12 PM — (Reply)
Comment by Dayna— 2006/06/02 @ 08:22 PM — (Reply)
got me there dayna, okay after the fall.
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/06/02 @ 09:14 PM — (Reply)
I wouldn't have gotten that from the book (Mere Christianity and communism)
I mentioned the book because it talks having a conscious and where that conscious in C.S. Lewis' view comes from
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/06/02 @ 08:15 PM — (Reply)
I don't have the book at hand, unfortunately (left it at my desk at work), but it was right around page 80 or so where Lewis comes out and directly says (I believe) that 'this will sound uncomfortably Socialist to many'...
Comment by Michael— 2006/06/02 @ 08:18 PM — (Reply)
And while the practice of true charity may sound "uncomfortably socialist to many", the similarities end there. Consecration, giving all to the church to redistribute, was not about forced giving but self motivated giving - and that is not the same as Godless government driven socialism or communism. One is an act of faith the other an act of involuntary submission. If you consider communism in the context of ending classism, it is, for many, a selfish and self-serving concept.
Comment by Cate— 2006/06/02 @ 08:31 PM — (Reply)
Damn... once again you put it much more succinctly than I did, and I agree completely.
Please note that "Godless" need not be fundamental to communism, and I think we would find agreement in that without God, without a moral base, communism is little different than any other form of government.
Comment by Michael— 2006/06/02 @ 08:59 PM — (Reply)
Agreed.
Comment by elmers brother— 2006/06/02 @ 09:13 PM — (Reply)