From: jimb47@netcom.com (Jim Budler)
Subject: Re: Corporate buyout of the Democratic Party
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 06:26:16 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <23JUL92.10120441@vision.waisman.wisc.edu> jolson@vision.waisman.wisc.edu writes:
>
> ITEM: Two days before the convention, a ``Victory Train'' carried
>congressional Democrats from Washington to New York. Accompanying
>the party elite on the train ride were corporate lobbyists who
>paid $10,000 to $25,000 for the right to mingle and shmooze.
>The Democratic National Committee has been raking in money from
>virtually every corporate interest needing a government
>favor. The message to anti-poverty or consumer-rights activists:
>No need for you to come on board. You can wait at the station.

Well, it's nice to know the Democrates are a sleazy as the Republicans,
though why anyone needed a media watchdog to tell them what they could
have observed for themselves if they'd bothered to watch the Clarence
Thomas hearings, I don't know.

>ITEM: The Clinton-Gore ticket represents the seizure of the
>party hierarchy by the Democratic Leadership Council, which
>is typically euphemized in the media as a group of
>``moderate'' Democratic politicians who want the party to
>``speak for the middle class.'' (Clinton and Gore were
>founders of the DLC; Clinton was its chair in 1990-91.)
>The problem is that the DLC has no middle-class constituents.
>It is bankrolled by - and speaks for - corporate America:
>ARCO, Dow Chemical, Georgia Pacific, Martin Marietta, the
>Tobacco Institute, the Petroleum Institute, etc.

So this is a surprise? These companies consider it a tax. They pay both
sides.

What's the point? Bush is accepting these same donations. Perot *is*
corporate America.

Since Bush and Clinton are both accepting corporate contributions, it is
now a moot point. Of no value in chosing.

>ITEM: Clinton became the media-designated ``front-runner'' in
>large part because he raised so much money early in the
>campaign. The cash didn't come from middle-class folks.
>As reported by the weekly In These Times, most of it
>came from conservative business interests; investment
>bankers, corporate lobbyists and Wall Street firms which
>fund both major political parties.

Since this describes both Bush and Clinton, again it's no longer a
deciding point. 

>ITEM: Two of Clinton's key fund-raisers were Robert Barry,
>a longtime General Electric lobbyist, and Thomas H. Boggs
>Jr., who ears $1.5 million a year as a lawyer-lobbyist
>for the Washington firm of Patton, Boggs, and Blow.
>Boggs' parents were members of Congress; his sister is
>media pundit Cokie Roberts. His law firm boasts a computer
>program that matches corporate donors with Congress members
>who seek his help in raising money; a match depends on what
>legislation is pending before Congress.

Is it a defamation to have such a computer program? I'd guess Ralph
Nader has such a computer program.

>ITEM: The Boggs law firm also boasts partner Ron Brown,
>chair of the Democratic Party. Some pundits have suggested
>that since Brown in an African-American, the Clinton-Gore
>ticket has less need of Jesse Jackson to mobilize the
>black vote in November. But Ron Brown is far more familiar
>with corporate boardrooms and government corridors than
>grass-roots organizing. His clients have included an
>array of U.S. and foreign business interests, as well as
>the regime of Haitian dictator Jean Claude Duvalier.

Do you want to compare his client list against CIA Director George Bush's
"client" list?

> When Jerry Brown spent his campaign denouncing
>``Washington sleaze,'' he was referring to these kinds of
>cozy corporate-government relations.
> But mainstream media have demonstrated far less animus
>toward corporate influence than toward Jerry Brown, who
>was routinely described by journalists covering the
>convention as ``disruptive,'' ``egotistical'' and a
>``party pooper.''
> Aided by this media slant, corporate insiders are
>laughing all the way to the bank.

I'm sorry, I think a successful corporate America is necessary for a
successful America. 

>This is the real problem with our "democracy" - the voters have
>very little influence over the choices.  Those decisions have
>already been made for us.  We should feel glad about it, now
>we don't have to make the difficult decisions...

Yes, our REPUBLIC reduces our choices. The process is merely influenced,
not decided by the voters.

We should be glad, not sad about this. A truely democratic America would
have voted George Bush "President for Life" after he won 92% approval
following the Iraq "war".

Everything you have highlighted makes me more comfortable about my
decision as a lifetime Republican to vote for Clinton in November.

Thank You for the information.


-- 
Jim Budler

also jimb@silvlis.com and 72415.1200@compuserve.com
Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.guns,talk.abortion