A "deeper progressive bench" is the goal of Soros and other Billionaires...  The insurance guy is the head of Progressive Insurance.

If they can't win by ballots and can't win in the courts, they'll BUY their way in!

Mike



story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1106&ncid=1106&e=4&u=/ft/20050111/bs_ft/c0e45a86640811d9b0ed00000e2511c8

Soros group raises stakes in battle with US neo-cons

Tue Jan 11, 5:25 PM ET  

By James Harding in Washington

A group of billionaire philanthropists are to donate tens of millions more dollars to develop progressive political ideas in the US in an effort to counter the conservative ascendancy.

George Soros, who made his fortune in the hedge fund industry; Herb and Marion Sandler, the California couple who own a multi-billion-dollar savings and loan business; and Peter Lewis, the chairman of an Ohio insurance company, donated more than $63m (£34m) in the 2004 election cycle to organisations seeking to defeat George W. Bush.

At a meeting in San Francisco last month, the left-leaning billionaires agreed to commit an even larger sum over a longer period to building institutions to foster progressive ideas and people.

Far from being disillusioned by the defeat of John Kerry (news - web sites), the Democratic presidential candidate, the billionaires have resolved to invest further in the intellectual future of the left, one person involved said.

Their commitment to provide new money comes amid criticism of the efforts of high-profile donors such as the Hungarian-born Mr Soros to sway US politics as well as doubts about the effectiveness of record funding in helping the Democratic cause in 2004.

The details of the San Francisco meeting are closely held. Mr Soros and his son Jonathan, the Sandlers and Mr Lewis asked aides to leave the room as they discussed the planned financial commitment.

But the still-evolving plan, according to one person involved, is "joint investment to build intellectual infrastructure".

The intention is to provide the left with organisations in Washington that can match the heft of the rightwing think-tanks such as Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute. At a state level, the aim is to build what one person called a "deeper progressive bench".

The sums involved are the subject of speculation: one person said he had heard a commitment to spend more than $100m over 15 years, another said at least $25m over five years. Several people said their understanding was that the billionaires had decided to spend more, rather than less, than they did in 2004.

Mr Soros donated $27m, the Sandlers $13m and Mr Lewis $23m to so-called 527 groups privately-funded political organisations during the 2004 campaign, according to PoliticalMoneyLine, the campaign finance tracking service.

Stephen Bing, a film producer and heir to a real estate fortune who donated $13m, is also expected to be involved in the investment in progressive infrastructure.

Andrew Stern, who is president of the Service Employees International Union, has been working to include organised labour in the initiative.

Leftwing policy experts have already got wind of the new funds. One former aide to Mr Kerry said there had been talks with the Center for American Progress about making permanent the network of foreign policy experts established by Democrats in the 2004 campaign. He said he had been told: "Money is not a problem."

How about a 99.999999% asset tax on leftist scumbags?  Screw these lying scum.  If leftism ( communism, socialism, fascism, etc ) were so frickin great why would they have to spend large sums of money to promote it?  

Quoted: The strength of Conservatives is that there is a moral foundation.  Right and Wrong are not just abstract concepts (that are easily blurred), but solid, tangible things for Conservatives.  As long as the Dems fail to understand that, they are just pooring money into a hole.

I would call them principles, personally, with me, I would just let those million/billion aires flush their money down the drain.

And the more $$$ these idiots put out, the more fence sitters are going to say:  "Hey, WTF, why should the rich guy get to control policy solely because of his money.   What's he supposed to get in return?"

Quoted: How about a 99.999999% asset tax on leftist scumbags?  Screw these lying scum.  If leftism ( communism, socialism, fascism, etc ) were so frickin great why would they have to spend large sums of money to promote it?

They have to spend large sums of money to advertise because they know they are selling you bullshit.

These guys are realy anti-gun. They can throw a lot of money at anti-gun groups, and that will mean more money the NRA has to spend in response. Those bastards suck!

A lot of liberal-leftist-progressive-marxists really do have morals and principals.  The Clintons coming to power kind of obscured that.

The problem for liberals is, the majority of Americans don't agree with LLPM morals or principals.  The only way they managed to capture the black vote was by showering money and priviledges on blacks.  Unfortunately for them, there isn't enough money to go around to secure a majority of the vote.

I think they are wasting their money.

The left is in serious trouble, and the Democrats are a party in decline. I think that after some amount of defeat, the Dems will reorganize into something else, something less leftist, and the Party will probably survive. But not with its current ideology.

Granted, the decline is slow, but it is consistent. Bill Clinton was only able to win by presenting himself as a centrist, and his last years in office were dedicated to passing Republican legislation (and signing odious EOs, but that's the only action he could undertake on his own). The Republicans now have both the House and the Senate, and the House is firmly in their control. They hold executive office in most states--even California.

Quoted: I think they are wasting their money. The left is in serious trouble, and the Democrats are a party in decline. I think that after some amount of defeat, the Dems will reorganize into something else, something less leftist, and the Party will probably survive. But not with its current ideology.

'mainstream' republicans are now as far left as most demoncraps were 30 years ago.  Who needs demoncraps when the GOP is so full of socialists?  We need less govt not more.  We need less socialism from BOTH PARTIES.   Our local republican state rep just used the phrase " social justice" .......That is pure marxist bullshit.  

Quoted: They are desperately trying to build "think tanks" to come up with "new ideas" because right now, they don't have any.  And all the talk is about finding "intellectual" solutions, but they fail to realize that intellectual ideas rarely solve real, practical problems.  They have no foundation to build on, so all they can do is try to jump from one perceived "hot-button issue" to another. The strength of Conservatives is that there is a moral foundation.  Right and Wrong are not just abstract concepts (that are easily blurred), but solid, tangible things for Conservatives.  As long as the Dems fail to understand that, they are just pooring money into a hole. -Troy

Well, I'd say that quite a bit of the leftist intellectual bedrock comes from the likes of Marx, while men like von Mises and Hayek form our intellectual base. Ideas have to be tied to sound reasoning, and their bedrock reasoning has proven unsound.

Quoted: Quoted: I think they are wasting their money. The left is in serious trouble, and the Democrats are a party in decline. I think that after some amount of defeat, the Dems will reorganize into something else, something less leftist, and the Party will probably survive. But not with its current ideology. 'mainstream' republicans are now as far left as most demoncraps were 30 years ago.  Who needs demoncraps when the GOP is so full of socialists?  We need less govt not more.  We need less socialism from BOTH PARTIES.   Our local republican state rep just used the phrase " social justice" .......That is pure marxist bullshit.

In 1960, conservative thought was viewed as dead. Most economists believed that central planning was more efficient than free markets. John Kenneth Galbraith, JFK's economic advisor, was predicting that our system couldn't compete with the Soviets.

Things have turned around. Completely. Granted, there is a lot of inertia in the system, and government has continued to grow long after the mainstream view supported that growth. But from an intellectual point of view and even a popular opinion point of view, the leftists are loosing.

But aren't the Left/Commiescum/Socialist/Democrats "for the little guy"?

From what I've been hearing the left has not been concentrating on new ideas but what they can say to fool the people better. I wish I had the quotes but they've been saying as much in almost every critique of the recent string of losses.

The main idea is still "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need".  Translation: Take money from those who earn it and give to people who do not.

Regards,
Mild Bill

Quoted: Quoted: I think they are wasting their money. The left is in serious trouble, and the Democrats are a party in decline. I think that after some amount of defeat, the Dems will reorganize into something else, something less leftist, and the Party will probably survive. But not with its current ideology. 'mainstream' republicans are now as far left as most demoncraps were 30 years ago.

Spoken like someone who doesn't remember George McGovern or Hubert Humphrey.

Leftwing policy experts have already got wind of the new funds. One former aide to Mr Kerry said there had been talks with the Center for American Progress about making permanent the network of foreign policy experts established by Democrats in the 2004 campaign. He said he had been told: "Money is not a problem."

Setup a "leftwing front" and collect a few mil.

You can buy a lot of lies with that kind of money......

It's amazing to me that people use the capitalist system in order to make BILLIONS of dollars turn right around and use that wealth to try and destroy the very system that put them in postions of power in the first place.

I fear for the election in 2008.


The Democrats can run a ham sandwich and get most of their party to vote for it.


The top two Republicans being talked about to run right now are Guliani and McCain.  So would winning with either one of them as President really be winning?

Quoted: They are desperately trying to build "think tanks" to come up with "new ideas" because right now, they don't have any.  And all the talk is about finding "intellectual" solutions, but they fail to realize that intellectual ideas rarely solve real, practical problems.  They have no foundation to build on, so all they can do is try to jump from one perceived "hot-button issue" to another. The strength of Conservatives is that there is a moral foundation.  Right and Wrong are not just abstract concepts (that are easily blurred), but solid, tangible things for Conservatives.  As long as the Dems fail to understand that, they are just pooring money into a hole. -Troy

Troy I could enjoy talking politics with you. We have the same views.

Your whole statement is a PERFECT example of whats wrong with the socialist Dumocratic party. What I made red really sums it all up.

I don't think Bill Klinton would have won election without the dumbass third party. He never got an actual "MAJORITY" of voters, Just more than 1/3 of them.

......................THAT IS ALL