Posted on 01/17/2007 9:30:23 PM PST by FairOpinion
Despondent after George W. Bush won re-election, a small group of billionaire Democrats met in San Francisco in December 2004 to reflect on John Kerry’s failure to capture the White House. George Soros, Progressive Insurance Chairman Peter B. Lewis, and S&L tycoons Herb and Marion Sandler were angry and depressed. They felt they had been taken—seduced by the siren song of pollsters and the mainstream media who had assured them that the capture of the executive mansion was theirs. But despite giving millions of dollars to liberal candidates and 527 political committees, the donors came away with nothing. At about the same time, another group of wealthy Democratic donors was meeting at a hotel in Washington, D.C., feeling the same way. “The U.S. didn’t enter World War II until Japan bombed Pearl Harbor,” political consultant Erica Payne told the meeting. “We just had our Pearl Harbor.”
Determined to bring the Democratic Party back from the political wilderness, Soros and the others decided they needed a long-term strategy to regain power.
In April 2005, Soros gathered together an even larger group. Seventy millionaires and billionaires met in Phoenix, Ariz., to firm up the details for their fledging political financing clearinghouse.
Conservatives David Horowitz and Richard Poe, co-authors of The Shadow Party: How George Soros, Hillary Clinton and the Sixties Radicals Seized Control of the Democratic Party, refer to the Democracy Alliance as probably one of the “most active Shadow Party groups today.”
(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com ...
And the Democrats keep trying to sell that they are the party of the "little" guy.
The Democrats did not win anything. This last election was given to them by Republican stupidity and arrogance. Forget the corruption which was really limited to a few. And don't blame the "base" - all polls show they came out in the usual numbers, even though they had good reason to stay home.
The Republicans chased away those on the edges, conservative in heart but not in habitat - Reagan Democrats, union members, those who voted Republican since Reagan but who felt betrayed by issues that hit them hard yet were treated with indifference or scorn by the Republican elites - immigration and amnesty, spending, campaign finance, the Gang of 14, outsourcing.
Normally, a party thus defeated would analyze what went wrong and fix the problems, but these elite clowns have not gotten the message and even now continue with their arrogant, in-your-face behavior - more spending, running away from the war, amnesty. Somehow they think this will get them back in power.
No, it will let the Democrats with no platform or ideas get firmly entrenched and use the tools of power to prevent a conservative revival - return of the Fairness Doctrine, control of expression on blogs, tax breaks for their interest groups, millions of new voters from amnestied illegals.
Republicans better find a Reagan quick or a new Newt with some conservative principles or it will be a long time in the wilderness.
Bump for tomorrow read.
I heard or read somewhere that Soros was funding Obama. If that's so .. then how can Hillary shoot Obama down - because Soros is also funding her. Soros claims to be mad at Hillary because she is for the war .. but I'm not buying it.
As far as I can see .. Obama is being prepared to become Hillary's VP - because she will NEED the black vote. Call me cynical, but Hillary has never done anything without a purpose.
Long read, will save for later
Placemark to read more thoroughly tomorrow. From what I did read, it's frightening!
Good summation.
You have actually stumbled onto the truth. It IS FAR TOO IMPORTANT TO YOU PEOPLE. It blinds you to all other issues.
By the way, aren't you glad the republicans were taught a lesson. The immigration legislation coming from the democrats will be so much better.
Do you think that a solid Republican who promises to close and militarize the border would likely be a winner in 2008 ????
George Soros is not only an evil person, he actually LOOKS evil.
No two people share identical views, especially where politics is concerned. We all weigh the issues and decide how important they are to us, subject to change without notice.
My livelihood was adversely affected by illegal immigration, so to me, it is very important.
That doesn't mean that I am blind to other issues.
Did Reagan's amnesty or huge deficit doom Bush 41?
This is something new?
Frankly it's amazing that conservatives of any stripe win at all. The media dominance that so define the debates seems near monopolistic, and academia has been churning out good little socialist drones for decades now. And democracy is for all practical purposes dead, having been replaced by worship of the state - EVERYTHING is political, all manner of petty disputes to be made a federal case. This was the plan, not an aberration.
"Did Reagan's amnesty or huge deficit doom Bush 41?"
Reagan's amnesty hurt even though it was relatively inconsequential, about a million and a promise of rigid enforcement to make sure they were the last. That number was not a threat to the economy, jobs, and culture of America. Nevertheless, the million turned out to be three million and the laws were not enforced. The effect was not seen until years (and 20 million illegals) later.
That debt was used to reconstruct the armed forces and it won the Cold War. Bush 41 won because he was thought to be Reagan's third term. When it was seen that he was not, he lost on the next go. And why did he lose? Because those who were dissatisfied, the Reagan Dems and the independents who could not stomach Dem socialism, had an alternative in Perot (19%), who sounded decent until he revealed himself to be a nutcase.
As a harbinger of things to come, many forgot that Perot won a lot of votes on the issue of taxation and outsourcing jobs and business to NAFTA Mexican labor (the great sucking sound).
Now with the help of a Republican President and Senate, we no longer have to send our businesses to Mexico, we leave them in place and bring the cheap Mexican labor here.
bookmark
Journalism as we know it is cynical about everyone except journalism - and those who agree with journalists. That is a sufficient condition for journalism to be socialistic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.