Soros on Bush

[Brian Olewnick]

Figured both sides here would get a kick one way or another out of this:

Soros banks on Bush defeat

From correspondents in Washington

November 12, 2003

BILLIONAIRE philanthropist George Soros says his main goal right now is to get President George W. Bush out of office in 2004, "and I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is", he told The Washington Post.


"It's the central focus of my life," Soros said in an interview published in the Post yesterday, a day after he gave $US5 million ($7 million) to MoveOn.org, a left-wing group dedicated to combating the US President's policies.

Soros, who has donated more modest sums to Democratic candidates in the past, had already given $US10 million in August to America Coming Together, or ACT, a new group which says it aims to mobilise voters to "defeat George W. Bush and elect progressive candidates all across America".


"If necessary, I would give more money," Soros said.


"America, under Bush, is a danger to the world," the 74-year-old Soros said, adding that Bush was "leading the US and the world toward a vicious circle of escalating violence".


Therefore, he said, the 2004 presidential vote was "a matter of life and death."


Soros, worth an estimated $US7 billion, according to the daily, said Bush's words recalled the type of rhetoric used when he was growing up in German-occupied Hungary.


"When I hear Bush say, 'You're either with us or against us', it reminds me of the Germans," he said.

[Uli]

Originally posted by Brian Olewnick
Figured both sides here would get a kick one way or another out of this:

Yes, Ollie. Both sides here have alredy discussed this in one of the Bushi threads. I am glad though, that those above us are looking out fer us.

[Brian Olewnick]

D'oh, too many bush threads to keep track of. Oh well, mone feel free to delete this thread.

[Uli]

Originally posted by Brian Olewnick
Oh well, mone feel free to delete this thread.

You can do it yourself, Ollie!

or maybe I should say, Goodie can.

[BFrank]

Here's where you can get more information on Soros' projects:

Open Society Institute

[Monte Smith]

Hey, here's how they handle dissent Russian style. Interesting.

Soros's foundation left 'paralysed' after raid

November 12, 2003

By Sapa-AFP

Moscow - Fifteen years since it started work in post-Soviet Russia, US billionaire financier George Soros's foundation has been "paralysed" after 50 camouflage-clad men seized its Moscow offices and removed computer records and archives.

Yekaterina Geniyeva, the head of Soros's Open Society Institute in Russia, told journalists yesterday that the raid, ordered by the building's owner ostensibly because of a dispute over rent, appeared to be politically motivated.

The raid, at about midnight on Thursday, came just days after Soros publicly criticised the jailing of Russian oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky as "persecution" that would force business to submit to the state.

The organisation had lost all information on its 1 000 grant recipients, Geniyeva said.

"This means that the work of the Soros foundation is paralysed. We can't work without our financial framework."

"I really hope that there is no connection between the arrest of Mikhail Khodorkovsky and what happened with our building ... But I cannot rule this out completely. There are too many coincidences: the interview of Soros, the arrest of Khodorkovsky, the seizure of the Soros building and the removal of documents. We do not understand why they were needed.

"The Soros foundation has been stripped bare. There is nothing left but the walls. We will try to resurrect our activities but we cannot be certain when," Geniyeva said.

The foundation is involved in promoting civil society and the development of democratic ideas, chiefly in former Soviet bloc countries.

Khodorkovsky, the former boss of oil giant Yukos, has been in jail since October 25 on seven charges including fraud and tax evasion.

A Moscow court yesterday turned down an appeal by Khodorkovsky to be released from jail after a two-hour bailhearing that was held behind closed doors, Sapa-AP reported.

http://www.busrep.co.za/index.php?fS...ticleId=282302

[Darryl G. Thomas]

Monte,

No surprise. The KGB's running that joint.

I thought Bush looked deep into Putin's eyes and... oh never mind.

Hey the right's got Mellon-Scaife (or is it Scaife-Mellon) and the left's got Soros. I figured all the rich cats went Republican (at least athletes).

[Monte Smith]

Originally posted by Darryl G. Thomas
I figured all the rich cats went Republican (at least athletes).

Darryl,

There's diversity in the political opinions of the more affluent classes, but it is usually the Democrats who have the advantage with the "big fish" donors. Historically, Republicans get more money through a larger number of contributors giving a smaller average amount. Democrats have a smaller giving base, but they have deeper pockets.

Don't believe me? Here's some analysis from opensecrets.org. This deals with the most recent election but one, 2002. I posted this info on the Today's Editorial thread once before.

The study found that Republicans raised more than Democrats from individuals who contributed small and medium amounts of money during the 2002 election cycle, but Democrats far outpaced Republicans among deep-pocketed givers.

Republican candidates and parties topped their Democratic counterparts, $68 million to $44 million, in fundraising from individuals who contributed under $1,000 in itemized contributions for the 2002 elections. Among donors giving $1,000 or more, Republicans again beat out Democrats, $317 million to $307 million.

But the trend was reversed among individuals at higher giving levels, from whom Democrats raised far more money than Republicans. Among donors of $10,000 or more, Democrats out-raised Republicans, $140 million to $111 million. Among donors of $100,000 or more, Democrats raised $72 million to the Republicans' $34 million. And among the most generous givers - those contributing $1 million or more - Democrats far outdistanced Republicans, $36 million to just over $3 million.

Originally posted by Darryl G. Thomas


Hey the right's got Mellon-Scaife (or is it Scaife-Mellon) and the left's got Soros.....

.....and what, like 60% of Hollywood or more? Where does this idea come from that the affluent are Republican, and the poor are democrat?

I would say that at least 80% of all the doctors I've worked with over the years were hardcore liberal democrats. The last two bosses my wife worked for were also democrats, and they both made over $100,000 a year.

Hollywood stars? Musicians? I think it would be quite safe to say that the majority of thm are liberal democrats.

Yet my dad, who has next to nothing is so hardcore right wing that he would make me look like a liberal. Same could be said of my mother. Nor am I rich. Most people in my town, which is very middle class, are conservative republicans.

Perhaps I just have been witness to the wrong cross section.

[Tanager]

Originally posted by Scott Dolan
Perhaps I just have been witness to the wrong cross section.

I'd say so, since most of the execs I've gotten to know at work, all of whom definitely qualify as "affluent," are decidedly staunch Republicans. I think you and I are just drawing on different pools of purely anecdotal evidence, honestly.

[Monte Smith]

Originally posted by Tanager
I'd say so, since most of the execs I've gotten to know at work, all of whom definitely qualify as "affluent," are decidedly staunch Republicans. I think you and I are just drawing on different pools of purely anecdotal evidence, honestly.

Yeah, Tan...you're in the Research Triangle. That must be heavily Republican.

But you needn't argue from anecdotal evidence. The site I referenced, opensecrets.org, is a wonderful resource. Particularly interesting is a feature where you can enter a zip code and learn who wrote the biggest checks in that area. It's enlightening--and non-anecdotal--to contrast where I live now (where the biggest donation was $1000 to a Democratic Congressman) with my old address on the Upper East Side of Manhattan (10021, where Donor Numero Uno gave $250,000 to the DNC) with zip codes across the nation.

You can also see the nationwide top contributors and top contributing organizations. The Dems far outpace the Repubs in HUGE donations. The Repubs outpace the Dems in small to large contributions. As a partisan, I don't wish it was the other way around. Elites with money will only get you so far.

[Tanager]

Originally posted by Monte Smith
Yeah, Tan...you're in the Research Triangle. That must be heavily Republican.

Not uniformly by any stretch. Chapel Hill and Durham are both predominantly Dem, especially Durham, I think.

But you needn't argue from anecdotal evidence.

I wasn't - I wasn't really arguing anything at all. I was just saying that I felt that neither my personal experience nor that of Scott really indicated much of anything with respect to larger trends, etc.

[Monte Smith]

Originally posted by Tanager
Chapel Hill and Durham are both predominantly Dem, especially Durham, I think.

Give it time. Mwahahahahahaha!