Is Pelosi's Posse Funded by Taxpayer Dollars?

[Cyrus]

Obama made four million last year. Just because he was poor as a kid doesn't mean he can't have become an elite/elitist. I'm not saying that he has necessarily. I don't know him well enough, but at the same time I am sure he currently lives a hundred times better than the people still living where he grew up.

Because unlike the people where he grew up, he studied hard, went to school (harvard) became a lawyer, then a congressman, and now presidential candidate. So, yeah he lives better than those people because he worked hard to get there. So, they can cry me a river while I play the worlds smallest violin.

And he wasn't mentioning the repubs so I have no idea why what they do makes any difference.

You should have an idea. It's a god damn joke for republicans that come from a long line of old money oil tycoons to call anyone else a 'liberal elite' who is not 'one of us' regular folk. You got into yale because of your father, skipped out in military service, and never did a hard days work in your life. Explain to me how your 'regular folk'? Better yet, explain how you can have the audacity to open your mouth and call anyone else elite.

The point is that the Dems tout themselves as the champions of the poor and oppressed while they themselves live like rayalty in comparison.

Does one have to be poor to be a champion of the poor? No, they dont. This is absurd.

And this they do often on money from public or campaign funds so they don't have to worry about spending any of their large tax payer funded salary in the process. Then they condemn those greedy republican bastards who make fortunes at the expense of the people.

How much money are they taking in at the end of the day from campaign funds?

 

[mheslep]

Also, could you please justify your comments about 'liberal elites'

Specifically, I'd like to know how a black guy that grew up poor and a VP that has a net worth of under $400k qualifies as 'ELITE'...

Obama made four million last year.

And he attended an expensive prep school followed by Columbia and Harvard.

This Obama tangent is ridiculous. The OP was about Speaker Pelosi, daughter of Congressman, who is well qualified as an elitist. More importantly, Speaker Pelosi rode into her current position on promising ethics and lobbying reform. One of the few things her Congress has managed to do was approve new rules that in part banned legislators/aids from receiving anything from lobbyists and the companies that employ them. In response we get "A Coors Field Day", a private event on Tuesday hosted by the Colorado Rockies and sponsored by Eli Lilly, Microsoft and others and attended by dozens of ... legislators and aids.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/08/26/corporate-interests-take-democrats-out-to-the-ballpark/

 

[Cyrus]

And he attended an expensive prep school followed by Columbia and Harvard.

Seriously, you're going to say Obama is 'Elite' becuase he went to a prep school...please try harder.

 

[WarPhalange]

He went to a prep school that he got scholarships for, no less.

ZOMG! HE WORKS TOO HARD! HOW UNAMERICAN!

 

[mheslep]

Same subject, another article.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121884539418446077-email.html"

WASHINGTON -- When the Democratic Party holds its convention the week after next, members of Congress will be able to hear singer Kanye West at an all-expenses paid party sponsored by the recording industry.

They can play in a poker tournament with Ben Affleck, courtesy of the poker industry. They can try to hit a home run at Coors Field, home of the Colorado Rockies, thanks to AT&T Corp. Free drinks and cigars will be on offer at a bash thrown by the liquor industry...

 

[Cyrus]

Same subject, another article.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121884539418446077-email.html"

I will concede Pelosi as being an elite, she's very wealthy and came from a family of power. But when the OP made the statement 'liberal elite' he lumped in EVERYONE that's democrat must be elite and wealthy. That's a nonsense statement and you know it.

Do you really think Nancy Pelosi, a woman worth $25million, is worried about spending a few hundred or even thousand bucks on dinner at fancy restaurants?

He said he wonders if the 'peons' know their money is supporting the liberal elite. News flash, they have more money than all the 'peons' combined. You're not supporiting the very wealthy by giving them a few expensive dinners.

You're wasting money on them, sure. But your not 'supporting' them.


Side: Why do they have a sketch of Kanye West like the police would make for a crime suspect?

 

[mheslep]

Seriously, you're going to say Obama is 'Elite' becuase he went to a prep school...please try harder.

No, I'm saying he didn't grow up 'poor'. He didn't drive BMWs to class but you don't attend 4 and 5 figure prep schools and get to claim you grew up without privilege, scholarship or no.

 

[Cyrus]

No, I'm saying he didn't grow up 'poor'. He didn't drive BMWs to class but you don't attend 4 and 5 figure prep schools and get to claim you grew up without privilege, scholarship or no.

Can we agree on middle class?

 

[mheslep]

I will concede Pelosi as being an elite, she's very wealthy and came from a family of power. But when the OP made the statement 'liberal elite' he lumped in EVERYONE that's democrat must be elite and wealthy. That's a nonsense statement and you know it.

The only lumping comes from your description, he made no such all inclusive statement, only that the 'elitists' are plural, and the lavish lobbying articles posted above obviously indicates that there are more than one.

 

[mheslep]

Side: Why do they have a sketch of Kanye West like the police would make for a crime suspect?

Standard WSJ practice, a trademark really. All such pieces use a black and white sketch of individuals.

 

[mheslep]

Can we agree on middle class?

Maybe, I don't really no how he came through the early years out in Ha.

 

[Cyrus]

Maybe, I don't really no how he came through the early years out in Ha.

If we can agree that he is (probably) middle class growing up. Let's even say upper middle class, he was by no means ELITE growing up.

He did not get into harvard becasue his father was a congressman (GW), or go to the Naval Academy because his father was a rear admiral (McCain), or had a father that was congressman (Pelosi).

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Because unlike the people where he grew up, he studied hard, went to school (harvard) became a lawyer, then a congressman, and now presidential candidate. So, yeah he lives better than those people because he worked hard to get there. So, they can cry me a river while I play the worlds smallest violin.

And I'm sure that attitude would fly well among all those liberals who feel that Obama got a lucky break and most young black people from poor communities are denied these opportunities.

You should have an idea. It's a god damn joke for republicans that come from a long line of old money oil tycoons to call anyone else a 'liberal elite' who is not 'one of us' regular folk. You got into yale because of your father, skipped out in military service, and never did a hard days work in your life. Explain to me how your 'regular folk'? Better yet, explain how you can have the audacity to open your mouth and call anyone else elite.

I doubt that Isly is in reality McCain or Bush. And think he is just calling the Dems hypocrites. On top of that the classic Repub position is that anyone who works hard enough can become as successful as they are or pass on success to their future generations. Some of them might even believe it. I think that the 'regular folk' line is generally in reference to possession of traditional conservatives values. Feeling and thinking the same way about things. And some of them might actually fit this bill aswell.
At any rate calling Dems hypocrites doesn't imply that Repubs are not. So saying that the repubs are hypocrites is in no way a refutation of the claim made by the OP.

Does one have to be poor to be a champion of the poor? No, they dont. This is absurd.

I never said they needed to be poor did I?
But a person looks like an absolute hypocrite when they decry the wealthy living in ostentatious comfort while the poor are starving and have no health care when that person can later be found having cigars over a five hundred dollar bottle of brandy in the most exclusive restaurant in town. I don't care for people who live like that to begin with but when they pay lip service to fighting for the poor and oppressed at the same time it makes me sick. Worse is when they pay that lip service in order to get elected so they can gain more power and wealth.
Considering that a person could live comfortably for the rest of their life with only a couple million dollars in the bank and that Obama is worth nearly 80 million and madeover four million last year alone I would like to see him giving more than 5.7% of that income to those people he is fighting so hard for. Does he even need that four million at all? Hell he can even get a tax right off for up to 50% of it.

How much money are they taking in at the end of the day from campaign funds?

I'm not sure what you mean from this. Like putting in their pockets? I never even insinuated that they put it in their pockets but said that they can live rather well on that money on the campaign trail without ever reaching into their own pockets which are rather well lined to begin with. **** how many million was Hillary's campaign in debt again?

 

[Cyrus]

And I'm sure that attitude would fly well among all those liberals who feel that Obama got a lucky break and most young black people from poor communities are denied these opportunities.

Yea they are. But they are also not the one's claming he's a liberal elite. They're the ones voting for him because they know where he came from.

I doubt that Isly is in reality McCain or Bush.

I thought it was obvious who the 'you' was in the context of what I was saying...

And think he is just calling the Dems hypocrites.

Yes, and I am showing you that this is a game republicans play when they themselves are guilty of what they claim democrats do.

On top of that the classic Repub position is that anyone who works hard enough can become as successful as they are or pass on success to their future generations.Some of them might even believe it.

Wouldnt that be....dare I say...ELITIST?

I think that the 'regular folk' line is generally in reference to possession of traditional conservatives values. Feeling and thinking the same way about things. And some of them might actually fit this bill aswell.

I think that's part of it. And another part of it is him conning the people he's speaking to into thinking he's a hard working american like them -which he is not.

At any rate calling Dems hypocrites doesn't imply that Repubs are not. So saying that the repubs are hypocrites is in no way a refutation of the claim made by the OP.

I'm not refuting his claim about the party. I just don't like his generalizations about democrats and the tone in which is mouthing off about them. It's got no purpose other than to be offensive when you call them 'liberal elite' drinking 'kool aid'.

I never said they needed to be poor did I?

You said:

The point is that the Dems tout themselves as the champions of the poor and oppressed while they themselves live like rayalty in comparison.

So they don't need to be poor, but they also can't be rich. So what must they be then? There's also the possiblity that they live well but also help the poor.

But a person looks like an absolute hypocrite when they decry the wealthy living in ostentatious comfort while the poor are starving and have no health care when that person can later be found having cigars over a five hundred dollar bottle of brandy in the most exclusive restaurant in town.

That I'll agree with you on.

I don't care for people who live like that to begin with but when they pay lip service to fighting for the poor and oppressed at the same time it makes me sick. Worse is when they pay that lip service in order to get elected so they can gain more power and wealth.
Considering that a person could live comfortably for the rest of their life with only a couple million dollars in the bank and that Obama is worth nearly 80 million and madeover four million last year alone I would like to see him giving more than 5.7% of that income to those people he is fighting so hard for. Does he even need that four million at all? Hell he can even get a tax right off for up to 50% of it.

Where did you get 80 million from? I thought he's worth a few million.

I'm not sure what you mean from this. Like putting in their pockets? I never even insinuated that they put it in their pockets but said that they can live rather well on that money on the campaign trail without ever reaching into their own pockets which are rather well lined to begin with. **** how many million was Hillary's campaign in debt again?

I mean, if they loose do they get to keep whatever money is left over from the campaign? Also, how many of these expensive event dinners do they hold?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

So they don't need to be poor, but they also can't be rich. So what must they be then? There's also the possiblity that they live well but also help the poor.

Where did you get 80 million from? I thought he's worth a few million.

Oops... I was skimming and improperly placed the commas.

I mean, if they loose do they get to keep whatever money is left over from the campaign? Also, how many of these expensive event dinners do they hold?

I don't believe they keep it for themselves (aren't supposed to anyway) but it usually goes to other campaigning whether for the same person or another. Once in office there are plenty of ways to get money to support an overly glamourous lifestyle. The republicans around here just recently went after a democrat politician for using slush funds to pay for expensive dinners, trips to europe, and expensive gifts. And it was all technically allowable because he was 'on business'.

I'm not sure about the number of event dinners that they have held for the campaigns. So far I can't find anything specifically on that but only campaign spending which is pretty outrageous in and of itself. Hillary's campaign apparently spent $1,200 on donut runs and $11,000 on pizza runs in just the month of january. She and her campaign people stayed in places like the Belagio($25,000) and Four Seasons($5,000) in the week before the Nevada Caucus.
And here's the article so you know I'm not mussing numbers again...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/22/us/politics/22clinton.html
It also states that she had to spend 5 million on her campaign due to over spending. I like they way they say she had to "lend" her campaign the money.

 

[turbo]

Well, it has started - charges of "probable cause to commit a riot" - let's see if the OP has any sympathy for people at the RNC...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080830/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cvn_convention_protest;_ylt=AouvJBFMERLLPd2nqRqclTms0NUE

 

[Evo]

Well, it has started - charges of "probable cause to commit a riot" - let's see if the OP has any sympathy for people at the RNC...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080830/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cvn_convention_protest;_ylt=AouvJBFMERLLPd2nqRqclTms0NUE

What are they protesting?

 

[turbo]

They weren't protesting anything at the time. Apparently, they were planning marches, etc, and were subjected to pre-emptive arrests.

 

[Evo]

They weren't protesting anything at the time. Apparently, they were planning marches, etc, and were subjected to pre-emptive arrests.

Correction, what were they planning to protest, anyone know? The article doesn't say.

 

[Gokul43201]

And he attended an expensive prep school followed by Columbia and Harvard.

He went to a prep school that he got scholarships for, no less.

You didn't have to tell mheslep that. He knows it, but decided not to mention it this time. Well, that argument failed miserably, the last time round when he did mention it: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=1798557#post1798557

And attended an http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec04/obama_7-27.html" which has a current tuition of $16k/yr.

I'm disappointed.

 

[Gokul43201]

Considering that a person could live comfortably for the rest of their life with only a couple million dollars in the bank and that Obama is worth nearly 80 million and madeover four million last year alone I would like to see him giving more than 5.7% of that income to those people he is fighting so hard for.

I thought he's worth a few million.

As of the end of 2007, Obama was worth $1.3 million.

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/moneymag/0712/gallery.candidates.moneymag/5.html

Other people (same link):

Edwards, $55 million
Clinton, $35 million

Romney, $200 million
Giuliani, $52 million
McCain, $40 million

For 2006 numbers (Obama, $800,000; McCain, $36 million), see: http://fortune535.sunlightprojects.org/

 

[mheslep]

You didn't have to tell mheslep that. He knows it, but decided not to mention it this time.

Because my point in this context was that the scholarship doesn't matter with respect to privilege, as I stated:

No, I'm saying he didn't grow up 'poor'. He didn't drive BMWs to class but you don't attend 4 and 5 figure prep schools and get to claim you grew up without privilege, scholarship or no.

Bold added here.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

As of the end of 2007, Obama was worth $1.3 million.

http://money.cnn.com/galleries/2007/moneymag/0712/gallery.candidates.moneymag/5.html

Other people (same link):

Edwards, $55 million
Clinton, $35 million

Romney, $200 million
Giuliani, $52 million
McCain, $40 million

For 2006 numbers (Obama, $800,000; McCain, $36 million), see: http://fortune535.sunlightprojects.org/

Yes. My mistake. I still haven't looked that deeply into Obama and my mistake is showing me he's a lot better than I was even thinking to begin with. Clinton is the one I really don't like.

 

[Gokul43201]

Because my point in this context was that the scholarship doesn't matter with respect to privilege, as I stated:

Then my point would be that privilege doesn't matter with respect to poor.

I go to grad school at a university that has five figure tuition, but being a grad student it is covered for me. My income (graduate stipend) is less than a third of the US median income and probably about a fifth of the incomes of the families that send their kids to school here. I own a 16-yr old car, a $30 bicycle, a $25 cell phone, and last month I shopped for clothes for the first time in 3 years. I have no savings.

Just because I go to school here doesn't mean I can share the extravagant lifestyle of the kids that live down the street from me. But I do have access to high-speed internet, a computer paid for by my University Fellowship and get to travel about once a year to give a conference talk.

I know what it is like to be poor and "privileged" (...if that's even the right word. My GRE subject score is nearly twice that of some American students in my department. I like to think I earned my Fellowship.)

 

[isly ilwott]

I will concede Pelosi as being an elite, she's very wealthy and came from a family of power. But when the OP made the statement 'liberal elite' he lumped in EVERYONE that's democrat must be elite and wealthy. That's a nonsense statement and you know it.

Untrue. I said that the liberal elite are gathering with Nancy Pelosi. I believe the invitation was limited to a group called The Pelosi 100. That's hardly EVERYONE that's Democrat.

Pay attention.

Also, could you please justify your comments about 'liberal elites'

Specifically, I'd like to know how a black guy that grew up poor and a VP that has a net worth of under $400k qualifies as 'ELITE'.

Let me clarify my intended connotation of liberal elite. (and don't give me that poor tripe about Barack Obama)

Liberal elite:
That is a liberal in a paid governmental position that comes with perks unavailable to those governed, or a liberal who contributes so much money to the cause that his/her wishes are administered by those to which the contributions are made. One doesn't have to be rich...just powerful enough by virtue of position or pocketbook to demand that additional monies be spent on their personal interests...such as free meals, free lavish surroundings, free transportation, franking privileges, free travel expenses, free whatever...the only thing bad about this is that nothing is really free; it's just paid for by somebody else. The elite liberals never really pay. The ones that contribute get more than their money's worth back in favors (that somehow translate into wealth or power). The ones that are in paid positions have their entire livelihood financed for them.

Now, I'd like you to explain to me how a GW Bush, from a long line of oil millionaires, and John McCain, the son of a long line of rear admirals, is 'one of you common folk'...

You must have some very very impressive ways of rationalizing in your head non-truths. Because clearly, what you stated was nonsense. You sure the Repubs haven't been feeding you any kool-aid?

You display here the uncanny liberal tendency to read something extra into what is said. This thread was started on the subject of Nancy Pelosi's Posse of liberal elites. I did not posit the non-existence of Republican elites. Certainly, their corral is replete with similar persons. Replace "liberal" with "conservative" in my described intended connotation and you have what is known to me as a Republican elitist. They exist on both sides of the aisle.

You seem to be forwarding the message that it's okay to be bad because the other side does it. What I despise is the fact that gifts are expected by and made to elitists on either side. It has become standard practice in this country to consider one's self above the general public simply because you are a government official or a big contributor to the party's cause. It's the little people that are actually worth their salt and deserve to have their taxes spent on things that benefit the taxed society without favoritism and outright theft of funds given to entertaining and gifting the elite ruling few.

The arrogance and delusions of superiority that are basic to elitists certainly exist without limitation due to political posturing. It is human nature to lean toward being smug, aloof and excessively proud of yourself when you are in a position to control things...and money talks!

The "let them eat cake" syndrome prevails where the ruling few (elite) are quartered.

Look up elite and you should find that its basic meaning relates to the act of choosing. The choicest part, a socially superior group (by choice of those considered superior), a powerful minority group, <a power elite within the government> &c.

It has little to do with wealth, except that by throwing money around one can easily become a member of the elite crowd that actually runs things.

Oh, to be one of the chosen few...in Pelosi's Posse.

 

[isly ilwott]

Well, it has started - charges of "probable cause to commit a riot" - let's see if the OP has any sympathy for people at the RNC...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080830/ap_on_go_pr_wh/cvn_convention_protest;_ylt=AouvJBFMERLLPd2nqRqclTms0NUE

I don't have much verified information regarding that incident. I've heard the protestors were arrested for violence...smashed windows, cut tires, &c. In such cases, the police are certainly justified in cuffing and hauling off protestors. This is not comparable to running a single reporter from in front of a business for "blocking the sidewalk".

Not a Winner...Please Try again!

(How many times have you seen that printed inside a Snicker's wrapper?)

 

[Gokul43201]

You haven't heard about the one a couple days ago, when the RNC Gestapo raided the office of a protest group... and eventually fined them for a fire code violation?

Let's thank them for the valuable fire protection service.

 

[turbo]

I don't have much verified information regarding that incident. I've heard the protestors were arrested for violence...smashed windows, cut tires, &c. In such cases, the police are certainly justified in cuffing and hauling off protestors. This is not comparable to running a single reporter from in front of a business for "blocking the sidewalk".

Not a Winner...Please Try again!

(How many times have you seen that printed inside a Snicker's wrapper?)

At the time that link was posted, there had not been a protest, there had not been a march, and there had been no property destruction, including smashed windows or slashed tires. They were pre-emptively arrested for planning marches - please mind the time-stamp on my post and on the link I included. The claim and the charge was that the police had "probable cause to believe that the detainees were conspiring to commit felony riot."

Your conflation of these pre-emptive arrests with arrests during actual protest marches is unfortunate.

 

[LowlyPion]

Untrue. I said that the liberal elite are gathering with Nancy Pelozi. I believe the invitation was limited to a group called The Pelozi 100. That's hardly EVERYONE that's Democrat...

It has little to do with wealth, except that by throwing money around one can easily become a member of the elite crowd that actually runs things.

Oh, to be one of the chosen few...in Pelozi's Posse.

I think you have a fundamental understanding of what's going on.

The Pelosi 100 are the big money contributors. They are the ones that are being wooed for more money no doubt. They are in effect paying for their own lavish parties. So what? What public money trail is that?

There are big money cats on both sides of the aisles, and if you want to limit influence that's a big job, because everyone has the right to free speech and those with more money get to talk louder. That's their choice. Your choice is not to listen.

 

[isly ilwott]

I think you have a fundamental understanding of what's going on.

The Pelosi 100 are the big money contributors. They are the ones that are being wooed for more money no doubt. They are in effect paying for their own lavish parties. So what? What public money trail is that?

There are big money cats on both sides of the aisles, and if you want to limit influence that's a big job, because everyone has the right to free speech and those with more money get to talk louder. That's their choice. Your choice is not to listen.

It is unfortunate that you or anyone else condones the buying of governmental influence. It is supposed to be one person-one vote. Government services are meant to be fairly distributed, not skewed toward those who pay extra.

 

[mheslep]

You haven't heard about the one a couple days ago, when the RNC Gestapo raided the office of a protest group... and eventually fined them for a fire code violation?

Let's thank them for the valuable fire protection service.

Were those cigar chomping, neck choke hold Denver cops outside Pelosi's hotel DNC Gestapo?

 

[mheslep]

I think you have a fundamental understanding of what's going on.

The Pelosi 100 are the big money contributors. They are the ones that are being wooed for more money no doubt. They are in effect paying for their own lavish parties. So what? What public money trail is that? ..

The 'so what' is its against law, passed by Pelosi's congress just after they took office. Intended to "drain the swamp" per Pelosi, the law bans lobbyists from giving anything of value to lawmakers, like a lavish party, or a private day at he ball park w/ the Colorado Rockies while one attends the D. convention; and it demands fund raising activities by lobbyists be reported. The Pelosi 100 are dancing a nice little two step, claiming to have "drained the swamp" on one beat, and on the next enjoying a loop hole in the law that permits the same old thing if a charity is involved.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0807/5273.html

...Lobbyists can't travel with members, can't eat with them (sitting down), can't give them free tickets to hot events, can't secretly promise them well-paying jobs and can't hold a fundraiser for them without the whole world finding out about it...

 

[Gokul43201]

Were those cigar chomping, neck choke hold Denver cops outside Pelosi's hotel DNC Gestapo?

Of course they were! Haven't you heard?

I wonder if anything could look more like gestapo tactics than the video of the fine officers who choked and arrested the ABC producer trying to get information about some of Pelosi's Posse on a public street...outside of a fine and fancy restuarant.
...
Big Brother is right around the corner.

 

[Astronuc]

THE NATION; The Hard Business of Soft Money

THEY call us the fathers of soft money,'' Bob Farmer says, and he's not preening.

Neither is Bob Mosbacher, the other hangdog dad.

In 1988, Mr. Farmer, the top money man for Michael Dukakis and the Democratic Party, and Mr. Mosbacher, finance chairman for George Bush and the Republicans, were the kings of campaign fund-raising. More than that, they earned a place in political history by starting the first national programs to raise soft money, the large, unrestricted gifts to the two parties by wealthy individuals, corporations and labor unions.

Both of them have lived to feel some regret over their fiscal ingenuity (though not, it must be said, the victories it contributed to). Today, Mr. Farmer says it's high time Washington passed campaign finance reform legislation. ''Obviously, money in politics is totally out of control,'' he says. Mr. Mosbacher agrees that ''it's gotten totally out of hand.''

And it's about to get worse, predicts Jeffrey Birnbaum, author of ''The Money Men'' (Crown Books), a forthcoming book about political fund-raising. ''There will be far more soft money than ever before,'' he says. Experts on campaign finance agree, some estimating that during the 2000 elections the two parties could collect as much as $500 million in soft money contributions. That's up from $262 million four years ago, when there were widespread fund-raising abuses.

Mr. Birnbaum says that the Clinton-Gore money team has taken soft money to a new level. ''At one time in the Democratic Party, it was time to celebrate if they got a $50,000 check,'' he says. ''Now a host of wealthy Democrats are expected to fork over $100,000 or more every year.'' The Republicans, Mr. Birnbaum adds, ''are hungry for victory, having been out of the White House for eight long years.'' More than 50 wealthy Republicans have joined the Regents, which costs them $250,000 apiece.

. . . .
When he learned about the Democrats' program, Mr. Mosbacher says, he worried about being outpaced, so he promptly copied their idea, calling the Republican version Team 100. Mr. Mosbacher says Vice President George Bush didn't like the idea. ''He moaned and groaned,'' Mr. Mosbacher recalls. ''He foresaw it as something that would be perceived as someone getting clout for making a big contribution.'' But he went along with Mr. Mosbacher's argument that the Republicans would be ''left in the lurch'' if they left the soft money field to Mr. Farmer. That year, Mr. Farmer recruited 130 Democratic Trustees, while Mr. Mosbacher drew 267 members to Team 100.
. . . .

Then there is Tom DeLay and the K-street lobbyists!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K_Street_Project
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist#Political_importance_on_national_politics

 

[isly ilwott]

Originally Posted by mheslep
Were those cigar chomping, neck choke hold Denver cops outside Pelosi's hotel DNC Gestapo?

Subsequently posted by Gokul
Of course they were! Haven't you heard?


Originally Posted by isly ilwott
I wonder if anything could look more like gestapo tactics than the video of the fine officers who choked and arrested the ABC producer trying to get information about some of Pelosi's Posse on a public street...outside of a fine and fancy restuarant.
...
Big Brother is right around the corner.

There was no claim that they were gestapo controlled by any particular group...just a question regarding if anything could look more like it.

Of course the insinuation that they were controlled by the DNC or were being sympathetic to the DNC cause is indeed there. Only you concluded that the claim was made that they were DNC gestapo. I believe I did refer to them as fine officers.