SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Alighieri who wrote (631852)10/16/2011 8:56:33 AM
From: steve harris1 Recommendation  Respond to of 1574751
 
The lefts' feelings towards rich republicans are well known.

How do you feel about Soros and his dirty money buying democrats?



To: Alighieri who wrote (631852)10/16/2011 9:27:15 PM
From: tejek  Respond to of 1574751
 
Cain's campaign manager and a number of aides have worked for Americans for Prosperity, or AFP, the advocacy group founded with support from billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, which lobbies for lower taxes and less government regulation and spending. Cain credits a businessman who served on an AFP advisory board with helping devise his "9-9-9" plan to rewrite the nation's tax code. And his years of speaking at AFP events have given the businessman and radio host a network of loyal grassroots fans.

No surprise there. Cain says what the Koch bros are thinking.



To: Alighieri who wrote (631852)10/16/2011 10:46:20 PM
From: i-node3 Recommendations  Respond to of 1574751
 
>> Long ties to Koch brothers key to Cain's campaign

LOL. You guys are scared shitless.

Rolling out the Koch Bros, the evil twins, is a dead giveaway.



To: Alighieri who wrote (631852)10/17/2011 11:48:58 AM
From: tejek1 Recommendation  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1574751
 
‘Why the Tea Party is Doomed’

We know the so-called Tea Party “movement,” once riding high, has seen its support falter of late, as evidenced by polls showing the American mainstream far more aligned with Occupy Wall Street. These activists and their leaders are, it seems, still at the center of the contemporary Republican power structure, but what does the future hold for the Tea Party?

In a piece in the upcoming print edition of the Washington Monthly, Colin Woodard reports on Tea Partiers’ waning influence, but with a specific focus on geography. The editors’ summary of the story helps set the stage for an interesting piece:

As 2010 drew to a close, the Tea Party looked like a truly national movement, racking up congressional seats and governor’s mansions not just in traditionally red states like South Carolina, but in the Northeast and Midwest as well. And yet, twelve months later, the Tea Party’s power seems to be melting away in much of the country. Tea Party-supported governors in states like Maine and Wisconsin find themselves beset by controversy over their radical agendas and incredibly unpopular with voters. Meanwhile the broader movement, once deemed unstoppable, seems to be running out of gas.

As Colin Woodard explains in the upcoming November/December issue of the Washington Monthly, this was predictable. The Tea Party’s agenda and credo may have struck a brief chord nationwide, but they are only truly at home in certain regions of the country, like the Deep South, that have historic affinities for such politics. In other regions, the movement’s tenets are anathema to centuries-old social, political, and cultural traditions that few of us fully understand.

In his piece, Woodard illuminates a hidden political geography of America, dividing the country into 11 distinct regions whose radically different characters have always set the terms of national politics and always made extremist movements a tough sell. Understanding these regions, he argues, will be key if progressives want to form a winning coalition going forward.

Read Woodard’s story “ A Geography Lesson for the Tea Party.”

Also note, Woodward will be talking about his book at the Arizona State University Washington Center in DC tonight. Those interested can RSVP here.

And for more on the subject matter, Michael Lind and Ed Kilgore had an interesting debate recently about whether the Tea Party is or is not a fundamentally Southern phenomenon. Lind makes the case for Tea Partiers’ limited regional appeal, while Kilgore argues it has broader appeal. The Woodard piece largely points to a middle ground.



To: Alighieri who wrote (631852)10/17/2011 11:53:35 AM
From: tejek  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 1574751
 
If she wins the Senate race in MA, I see her as a potential presidential candidate in 2016.

Elizabeth Warren’s Appeal

Published: October 16, 2011

For a few years now, politicians straining against all of the antigovernment demagogy have been searching for a way to energize public interest and remind voters of the essential government services and protections they rely on and all too often take for granted.

President Obama has struggled to find that language, only recently beginning to draw a clear contrast between his goal to revive the economy and put Americans back to work and the stagnation that is the inevitable result of the Republicans’ antitax, antispending policies.

While most other Democrats are afraid to talk about the need for higher taxes and are running away from the problem, Elizabeth Warren, the leading Democratic candidate for a Senate seat in Massachusetts, has engaged the fight and is beginning to rally supporters.

Ms. Warren talks about the nation’s growing income inequality in a way that channels the force of the Occupy Wall Street movement but makes it palatable and understandable to a far wider swath of voters. She is provocative and assertive in her critique of corporate power and the well-paid lobbyists who protect it in Washington, and eloquent in her defense of an eroding middle class.

It is an informed and measured populism, and it helps explain why she immediately became the leading Democratic contender in the race to challenge Senator Scott Brown, the Republican who is up for re-election next year.

Ms. Warren, a law professor at Harvard, helped to design the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Because of her fierce advocacy on behalf of consumers, Senate Republicans and the financial industry made clear they would never allow her to run it.

She is a remarkably eloquent and appealing Senate candidate. “Washington is well wired for big corporations that can hire armies of lobbyists,” she said last month, soon after joining the race. “But it’s not working very well for middle-class families, and that’s what I care about.”

She is both knowledgeable and accessible when she explains the destructive credit-swap and subprime mortgage games that created the financial crisis. She draws a detailed map back to the early deregulation of the 1980s that began to rip the nation’s economic fabric — the same deregulatory fervor the Republicans are preaching today.

Her larger appeal, though, comes from her ability to shred Republican arguments that rebalancing the tax burden constitutes class warfare. In a living-room speech that went viral on YouTube last month, she pointed out that people in this country don’t get rich entirely by themselves — everyone benefits from roads, public safety agencies and an education system paid for by taxes. And those who have benefited the most, she says, need to give back more.

“You built a factory and it turned into something terrific or a great idea — God bless!” she said. “Keep a big hunk of it. But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.”

Democrats should not be cowed by conservative taunts that the speech advocated “ collectivism,” and use this argument to push back against the Republicans’ refusal to raise the taxes of people who make more than a million dollars a year — sometimes far more. Senate Democratic leaders say they plan to employ poll-tested phrases like “Tea Party economics” and “Tea Party gridlock” in their campaign for a jobs bill and beyond. They would be better off listening to Elizabeth Warren.

nytimes.com