Soros group raises stakes in battle with US neo-cons

By James Harding in Washington
Published: January 11 2005 22:23 | Last updated: January 11 2005 22:23

george soros and 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, 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.

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/c0e45a86-6408-11d9-b0ed-00000e2511c8.html

:toast:

I think I got that name right.

Very interesting, and kind of long article from July 2004 here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/magazine/25DEMOCRATS.html?ei=5088&en=13ada638bbe542f0&ex=1248494400&partner=rssnyt&pagewanted=print&position=

titled Wiring The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy.

It's a good idea, but not a quick fix, so don't get too excited too soon.

of commitment it will take to overcome the years of brainwashing many Americans have been subjected to.

I hear many people speak in sound bites about issues that are dangerous to them and to the health of this country so blithely it is terrifying. We need to find ways to dialog in metaphors that do not touch on the fears that the RW has indoctrinated into many. That takes education, tolerance and time it seems to me.

It seems that the RW has set their sites on silencing college profs, or anyone they perceive as being in a positron to speak to progressive values. It is critical that many more mouthpieces get added to this discussion if we ever hope to live together in this sandbox. This will take money.

george soros and A group of billionaire philanthropists are to donate tens of millions *more* dollars to the Tsunami victims, right?

Honestly, do we really need this guy to come in and undermine both (read: all) sides of the political spectrum of America for _his_ own needs/desires?

Why are you against anti-progressive?

at all, but I am a bit anti Soros. Fight from the inside, no need to outsource the revolution.

Soros is an American citizen and has been for three decades. You need to catch up.
The Professor

that Soros has this or that background or this or that "integrity challenge." So how 'bout we deal with that AFTER we get the money and start putting it to work for the greater good - PROGRESSIVE/LIBERL REVIVAL?

I, for one, prefer not to look a gift horse in the mouth.

What Soros is doing is committing money to building infrastructure just as the right wing as done over the last 40+ years with the likes of Scaife, Coors, Murdoch, etc. It is vitally needed and long overdue.

It's all sweet and nice to think that some little internal "grass roots" will make it all happen, but it won't. The only thing you will eventually have is such a polarized, feudalistic society that only bloody revolution will make anything happen, and that's no guarantee of success. It is just that simple.

The only reason we even have a half-way effective grass roots is because of 1) Republicans/Bush out of control creating a natural, growing, counter-response, 2) the country is still free enough to publish and disseminate ideas and organize opposition.

How long do you think point 2 will last? Hmmm? The erosion in our civil liberties is well documented and accelerating, not slowing.

Also, keep in mind one other basic fact, the founding fathers were pretty much immigrants, also! Or, very close to it. So, if you want to jabber about Soros being some outsider", go pound sand. A helping hand is a helping hand, and he is truer embodiment of American values than many born here.

If Soros, who has talked the talk, and WALKED THE WALK wants to add more and develop a progressive, coordinated vision, then hallelujah! It is long overdue and will not come from the DLC, DNC or Democratic Party proper and the "grass roots" simply does not have enough resources behind them to counter this effectively via ad-hoc hopes and dreams, and they are always in danger of being eventually squashed by the rising Fascism.

Charles Stewart Mott?

the "liberal media" doesn't like to mention the billionaire sugar daddies that have been putting hundreds of millions into right-wing organizations for round about 40 years now.

Hmmmm.... why wouldn't the "liberal media" rage on and on about the right-wing sugar daddies? Maybe because there is no such thing as a "liberal media" because it is a myth produced by right-wing sugar daddies? Things that make you go hmmmm....

And, even that, I think is fairly, um, conservative.

...when he gets to the amount already donated by Richard Mellon Scaife.

:)

Basically if we can get the neocons knocked out of the White House the world will be a better place.

When did Soros undermine both sides?

The neocons have been holding up the progress of the entire world in just about every conceivable way. Getting the neocons out of power is a huge gift to the world and what we need above all else right now. Everything else will be better once this happens. Everything. I applaud Soros. Thank God there are some billionaires on the side of making the world a better place for everyone instead of just for themselves and their elite cronies.

Thanks for stopping by.

And as a well known philanthropist, I would venture a guess that he has donated to the Tsunami victims, as well. Helping to save our democracy is undermining exactly what?

but last time I checked, this was America and people could do whatever they want with their money, as long as it's legal.

And by the way, you are ASSuming that he HASN'T given any money to the tsunami relief efforts.

Tsk, tsk, shame on you.

...sat playing with himself at the "ranch" for days before doing anything about the tsunami.

AMF. For your information, the a stands for "adios". I'll let you figure out the rest. That is, if you can.

Right on all counts!:hi:

I grew in SCAIFESBURGH, PA (nee: Pittsburgh PA), I have seen Richard Scaife operate.

After "The Arkansas Project" and The Federalist Society, and the Hoover Institute, and the Hudson Institute, and the Cato Institute, and the American Enterprise Institute, and The Washington Legal Foundation, and the Pacific Legal Foundation, and on and on and on --- we need it.

After Scaife and Coors etc. -- we need it.

I don't think so.

WE Democrats as opposed to "you" & other repukes have been seeking this for a LONG time now.

WE are glad concrete steps are finally taking form.

* does it all the time and I bet Soros donated more money to the Tsunami victims than * did. What did * donate and make a big deal out of it, ten grand? Bawhahahahah

After LBJ kicked Goldwater's butt, the Bircher wing of the GOPpies dug themselves in for the long haul. They looked for big-money sugar daddies (not hard to find given how compatible their ideology is with unrestrained capitalist piracy/looting,) and started establishing "think tanks," buying up magazines and news outlets, and organizing for the long haul.

If Nixon hadn't dicked it up (woops, sorry, unintentional pun) we would have seen the neocon takeover in '76, instead of them having to wait through the Carter administration. It took them a little more than ten years to stop the progressive momentum and start the swing back into reaction.

Now, think about this: The progressive momentum they were fighting was the movement that started even before the New Deal and delivered to the American people minimum wage laws, 40-hour work weeks, the right to collective bargaining, safe workplaces, retirement with dignity, and a whole lot of other really important, useful stuff that improved the lives of an overwhelming majority of Americans. They had to work against THAT tide.

They found the only buttons that would work: Appeals to greed, racism, and the nasty small-mindedness that makes people more concerned about the relatively modest cost of a few pathetic individuals gaming the system versus the huge cost of trying to make the system gameproof or destroying it altogether and going without. Those were the only buttons powerful enough to wipe out the understanding and appreciation of all that progress toward a more just and equitable society for everyone.

So here we are, forty years later in 2005. What is the momentum we are fighting? The notion that everyone should be able to get rich if the eeeeeeevil gubmint just stops taxing them and spending "their" money on ensuring the health and safety of all those undeserving neighbors of theirs (never mind that its ensuring theirs, too.)

Damn, neighbors. If an investment of this kind of bucks can't find a few buttons for us to push to reverse THAT tide, we don't DESERVE another shot at trying to make America a more sustainable, livable, equitable society. Me, I look at the hash Little Bootsie & Co. are making of our future, and I think... we can beat their timeline by at least two or three years.

confidently,
Bright

Yup, that sums it up as to the rightwingers . . .

Now, if Soros and a few others want to plant large sums of seed monies in furtherance of think tanks, PACs or whatever else that could be done for progressive causes including grassroots stuff, I'm all for it.

However, Soros isn't the *end all* and no one should count him and his buddies as the sole solution. There's power in numbers as Dr. Dean loves to say. Revitalization at the local level and on up, would be effective as well.

.

outlet takes a "shine" to them, or invites them on the air (like we KNOW they do with the repubes), all we will get in return is the sound of crickets chirping.

The repubes thought strategically, and were QUIET about their acquistions.. Democrats are caught in the "I'm a-gonna do......" mode. They somehow feel the need to announce all the tactics they plan to use, so that the opposition knows exactly what to watch for.

What they SHOULD do/have done is to quietly start buying up radio stations in the red states (using third-party "owners" , if necessary) and quietly buying shares in other media venues, until they get controlling interest...

Once that was done, they would be in a position to start programming off-setting messages that would get some ears and eyes.

Setting up think tanks in DC, so a bunch of wonks can sit around opining, and occasionally doing verbal battle with repubes in a 3-1 ratio, is NOT a recipe for success.

and his DVD on how progressives can win. This is the formula. He is right to reccommend building think tanks and structure IMHO, but you're right about buying stations...

edited out the hot sauce. Don't know what got into me.

Here's a good essay to get anyone started

And here's the book: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0226467716/002-5377972-1917647?v=glance

Semiotic innovation notwithstanding, NONE of it matters without a big loudspeaker to carry our message. It makes me ache to read how many millions Soros et al spent this past election cycle that could have been invested in television programming or even a new, progressive TV network.

"Setting up think tanks in DC, so a bunch of wonks can sit around opining, and occasionally doing verbal battle with repubes in a 3-1 ratio, is NOT a recipe for success"

I had high hopes for our new think tank "Center for American Progress" started by John Podesta, et al...and I get a link to articles from them every other day...but they are never picked up by the MSM. The Print Press ignores them, and forget the cables..

Unless we get the "Fairness Doctrine" reinstated...we will not get any message out. That's the key to the door. I still can't get over Clinton giving our media away. That one action hurt us more than all the bad campaiging that's been done.

Without the Media reporting....we have no message that can be heard. Dems should have been all over this...way back. Why weren't they...I have no answer...no matter how many ways I try to look at it..

not Clinton

and if Reagan's repeal of "Fairness Doctrine" wasn't bad enough...the Media Consolidation under Clinton sealed our fate.

Even with consolidation, it forced opposing views. However, the media breakup must occur.

BTW, Clinton did say he regretted signing that law. In those day, however, everything was booming, the deficit had a plan to be paid off, freeing untold capital back into the system, it was a golden hope, so I forgive him for his conservative-democratic leanings. Reagan, I do not!

The telecommunications Act was a major act of rape, but the real deal went down under Reagan and it wasnt just the Fairness Doctrine repeal. In 1985 (my understanding was 1986, but check this link-)
http://resurgence.home.att.net/L-libmedia.htm
and this one
http://www.ketupa.net/nbc3.htm
Bill Casey was able to purchase ABC and NBC was bought by GE, CBS was bought by Westinghouse and all of a sudden huge social/political movements like the Nuclear Freeze were disappeared. These media buyouts were historically prohibited but the bottom line is
BIPARTISAN consent. It is insanity to lay everything or anything at the sole feet of Republican oligarchs when before your very eyes you see no hint of dissent or opposition from the "opposition". Remember who held the keys to Congress and the Senate all those years?
If the American people can ever get over their blindness to the lockstep bipartisan descent this country has taken in the last twenty years we might be able to do something about it.
Actually, it all started in 1947...

THE ace they hold is media control. And what an ace.

Media control has it all....Murdoch, Sinclair, Clear Channel....

Think tanks in Washington are only a good start.

Exactly right "However, Soros isn't the *end all* and no one should count him and his buddies as the sole solution. There's power in numbers as Dr. Dean loves to say. Revitalization at the local level and on up, would be effective as well.

One of the reasons that Bush won was, as Ed Schultz and Randi Rhodes both point out, "CHURCH" - By which they do not mean organized, faith based theological pushes. What they mean is that we progressives came in from out of town to run campaigns (and in many regions completely bypassed the local Democratic party and volunteers), while the Bushies used "locals" calling on "locals" and "neighbors" calling on "neighbors" - at "Church" - and Little League, and Kiwanis, and Rotary, and Knights of Columbus, and B'nai B'rith, and Boy Scouts/Girl Scouts, and the local watering holes.

For years my State Assemblyman back home used to work the Murray Avenue Sunday Brunch Circuit -- not the fund raisers but Larry Poli's "after church brunch crowd" and Bennie Weinstein's "New York Times, bagels, and lox brunch crowd."

We have to revitalize at the local level too - but we can not ignore the Think Tank level and the Advocacy level.

the Main Stream Whore Media on the Dole from the Repugs...they go home, turn on the TV and the propaganda overwhelms the good we can do in our local community organizations. Particularly if one lives in a Red State where to mention anything Democrat causes one to be an outcast and not asked to serve on any committees or invited to the neighborhood gatherings...

But...what you say is very true in places where there is more tolerance. We need to socialize and begin in our back yards... We need media fairness and our own boots on our own turf..

It's not the ones who will ignore you if they find out you are a Democrat that you want to win over. I have many Republicans in my family, and they have Democrats for friends, and they are the type of Bush voter you want to work with.

There are enough sane people in the US who we disagree with to make up for the illogical right wing, at least in most states.

definitely out there. I converted two of them myself...but they've been very antsy since Kerry conceded..asking me why he did that..

But...I understand what you say..

Rural folks don't read NYT, NYP, Wash Post or Times or any of those major outlets (let alone a buncha' books).

Rural folks are usually MORE dependent on all-around election outcomes (their jobs can be given or taken away) than either suburbanites or urbanites.

Rural folks are MORE involved in church activities ('cause they need God to inpire them to continue working just to survive).

AND rural folks HATE outsiders comin' in and tellin' 'em how to run the politics but they LOVE outsiders payin' 'em for a cause.

According to those with whom I worked, we had the MOST active, volunteer, grassroots drive, EVER (at least, within the last 45+ years). However, although we had LOTS of signs and LOTS of "advice", we did NOT have the money to overcome the very early campaign drive via radio and paper that our opposition utilized extremely effectively.

Moreover, unlike the opposition, we lacked the resources to hire one member from half a dozen or so (I want to call them "settlers" because they are several generation stay-puts) families to form a movement. I'm telling you, had we done that, we would have been a helluva lot more effective branching out to those who NEEDED to be involved.

Aw hell,...I could go on and on.

In the Rust Belt Ethnic Enclaves folks take politics very seriously, and they take "Church" seriously -- not from a theological viewpoint, but from an ethnic and social (bowling leagues, sponsor little league teams, etc.) perspective. Camaraderie and group identification.

All "outsiders" are kind of suspect - until they "buy a house in the neighborhood and settle down" or "marry local". Then they are okay.

A neighbor's child who drops out of school for the semester to "come home" and "work in the campaign" has much much more credibility then an "out of town, dorm" student at the local university who canvases for a candidate.

It doesn't matter what we do if the votes are stolen. We will always lose and they will always win. We have to expose the thieves.

The John Birch Society is the Sugar daddy. The John Birch Society was founded in Somerville, Mass., by candy manufacturer Robert Welch, creator of the Sugar Daddy. ... But then, I guess you knew that. ;)

Good points, good post

The right's ascendance was funded by billions of dollars, poured into foundations, media outlets, "institutes," etc. The financiers didn't mind that they were losing money at first, because they knew down the road it'd pay off....they were right.

We need billionaires who are willing to take a short term risk for long term payoffs in the name of the left.

It was $30 million. That's all it took to buy American.

I recall this from an article posted here. In fact, I think it was the NY Times article whose link is posted above.


Cher

It was much more spent that $30M. The budget for the Heritage Foundation alone is about that each year! Please post the article, but I firmly believe it is is way short.

BTW, here is a link to info about the HF: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heritage_foundation

I remember distinctly the figure of $30 million because it wasn't much at all.

Your figure and my figure differ because you are factoring in the cost of the think tanks. But to buy America's media? $30 million is the figure.


Cher

The cost to buy particular media outlet(s), whatever they were, is not the cost it took to take over this country, as it has been. It was much more than $30M. Even starting Fox was a money looser in the hundreds of millions for its first several years.

Regardless of what was spent, it was nothing compared to gaining control of a multi-trillion dollar, 300M Consumor, 1st world nation that also happends to be the worlds only superpower.

Please provide a link, your statement is way too vaugue to be any use for anything.

what they want with it, but they need to buy into media or they will not have much effect on politics at all.

We need at least one liberal cable news station devoted to world events 24 hours, and more radio programs.

Right now conservative outlets get our money and time because we have no other options. Once left-leaning media comes back to take the place of dead horses like NPR and PBS, it will swing some of less extremist outlets back into the middle just for the sake of competition, where it needs to be.

The secret is all in the media, if that is not where they put their money then they are pissing it away.

The Rightwing did not build think tanks that promoted the GOP. The rightwing built think tanks that promoted IDEAS about economics and about society and what it should be and what it is.

THAT is where Soros et al, need to be.

But so many DUers here see this as a thing that can be used to attack Bush and the GOP a la how the Fox News etc are used in campaigns by the GOP.

THat is NOT what this is or should be about. These think tanks should disseminate ideas not connected in any way with the Crats or GOP. Just ideas about what society is and should be, especially from an economics perspective.

over the past two generations

they have religious, sports, news (tv, print, radio)entertainment, education outlets so that the sheeple get a bit of propaganda no matter what they're doing. all it takes is subtle twists of language, an expression on a newsREADER's face ( objectivity be damned )... and note that the rw ALways gets the last word. that tends to stick in peoples' minds. plus they're convinced that they're victims so that makes them prime targets for demagoguery.

To compete with the corporate news networks. Imagine having a press that told the truth.

All the effort of right-wing think tanks is placed in two directions--influencing government and creating talking points to be picked up by the news media. When a reporter's Rolodex is virtually full of "experts" on the right, who does he call for an "informed" opinion before he writes the story? And what ends up going into that story?

I'd very much like to see a consortium of the wealthy on the left begin a news service on the lines of the non-profit model of the UK Guardian/Observer, concentrating on investigative journalism. Heavy investment, but very necessary, given the state of the media today. Distributed printing puts USA Today on streetcorners in every community in the country. The same can work for an unbiased, non-profit news service.

Most of this shit you don't even have to investigate, it's screaming at you. It would be great to spend the money these billionaires have as we saw fit.

that may apply to television as well.

I used to work at a weekly alternative newspaper doing editorial design and I think one really major problem with the journalism field is that the compensation for your effort is really pathetic. Reporters often work lots of overtime with no overtime pay because some publishers choose to see them as professional workers, not covered by overtime pay laws. While I don�t agree with what people like Armstrong Williams do in accepting money to favorably promote someone�s agenda, I can see how the temptation would be hard to deny.

In itself, investigative journalism is very expensive. You�re paying salary plus expenses to a reporter to produce an agreed amount of stories per term that you hope will boost your circulation numbers. These large numbers allow you to promote yourself to potential advertisers who want as many people to see their print ad as possible. It�s a risky business.

Our paper was free and paid for itself with advertising � well, sorta, it folded because it never could get out of the red - and I would guess that even subscribed-to dailies� and magazines� revenues come from advertising as well.

Well, what happens if one of your investigative reports portrays your biggest advertiser in a less than favorable light? You can either stand up for your principles, most likely lose the revenue, and "guess what kids, no raises this year for the lot of you." Or you can water it down or bury it, in which case why bother paying for an investigative journalist at all?

I agree that there needs to be major media reform. I�m amazed by the lack of depth or criticism towards Bush and his administration by the MSM today. It�s eerie really. I just hope that these progressive think tanks can come up with a formula where integrity isn�t a gamble and good, investigative journalists are valued as more than wage slaves.

There are so many parts of the fourth estate that need to be looked at but thought you might like a small inside perspective.

Distributed printing puts USA Today on streetcorners...

Would you elaborate a bit on what distributed printing is, please?


Cher

... a paper was entirely printed at its principal location. All copies came from that central location. If one wanted a copy of, say, the NY Times, it was mailed or shipped by the usual transportation services.

Within the last ten years or so, electronic layout software has enabled a newspaper, in its entirety, to be transferred electronically to a local or regional printer for printing and distribution. USA Today, for example, is printed in many dozens of locations within the US simultaneously, for distribution in every state and community every day. That's how USA Today is in news stands and corner newspaper dispensers each and every day.

Cheers.

It is the flagship paper for Gannett, which owns well over 100 daily newspapers around the country. Gannett uses the presses at those papers to print USA Today.

... what they cannot do themselves, so there's lots of printing sources available. For example, my local paper has all its supplements done out of house, because web presses they do not possess are available locally.

Gannett does not own the NY Times, and they use available local resources to do the same thing, as does the Wall Street Journal.

The capacity is there. All that is necessary is to use that capacity for more politically forthright purposes. :)

start. We are 40 years behind but can catch up.

To flesh out our values, ideas, and help provide direction.

For instance, on universal health care, what form should it take? Nationalized, regionalized? Fee for service (Medicare) or Government owned (VA)? Should we provide federal immunity to physicians and hospitals by making them employees of the federal government, like community health centers? How much would the different options cost, what type of healthcare could they provide, what are the pros and cons of each method?

Its nice to talk about ideas, but CATO has had a flat tax implementing legislation for 15 years -- a congressman (or president) could pick it up and put it into the hopper immediately. It has given republicans such as Steve Forbes ready ammunition for pushing his ideas, and in general make reublicans less shrill and more interested in doing something.

Bravo for Soros, his friends, and anyone else who wants to join him. If we are going to have a debate on the ideas (which we will win) we need to keep our ideas from coming accross as half baked.

Air America Radio is going quite well. Are we ready for Air America TV? I think so.

before posting mine...great minds think alike...:toast:

...come up with the scratch to purch, oh I don't know, say MSNBC.

,...be better?

Hell,...they're gettin' killed in this world of unfair, fight-the-monsters, trade! They don't even have a chance anymore.

:shrug:

Just sharin' thoughts.

-Hoot

maintream media outlets, that would be a good place to start.:eyes:

Now I know there is TRULY A GOD ON THE SIDE OF LIBERALS. TAKE THAT AND STICK WHERE THE SUN DON'T SHINE FREEPERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

and while i believe this will be a long term effort -- a long term effort is what's needed.
there needs to be a sea change in the way america thinks about government.
about the world.
about ourselves.
and every little bit from left/liberal thinking people helps.

,...working towards thwarting the neocons' imperialist agenda via effectively getting the word out to the people.

Ah,...in my dreams.

I am most grateful these influential individuals are investing in "the people". Most grateful.

8^)

i love left-wing money. it's all about the people.

Air America TV would be nice.

But they have to get into power like the neo-crazies have done.

Does this mean I have to buy a polo mallet or will Soros provide one? The money could be very helpful but how will it be spent and who gets to decide? I'm not so sure that we are short of "progressive political ideas" in the US. What seems to be missing are strategies for implementation and a consensus about which ideas to hitch the wagon to. Meanwhile the right, perched on their sniper platforms in the jungle, are picking us off one by one. Clinton, Gore, Kerry; they got sniped. And as Eminem noted: "If I get sniped tonight, you'll know why." But here is the problem--we don't really know why. I hope we figure it out. Maybe the Soros money will help--maybe it won't. $200 billion into Iraq and more to come!? All this from an unelected president whose motto, with with no disrespect intended to George Washington, is "I cannot and must not tell the truth." I just hope someone has a few things figured out before they start cashing the checks. And this guys is still in power. It boggles my mind.

for the GOP. Look at the pedigrees for the sub-cabinet neo-cons - Health and Human Services has been taken over by Hoover Institute, the Justice Department by Federalist Society --- all neo-con farm teams funded by John Birch sugar daddies.

The ACLU (as in Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Steve Breyer) doesn't have the band width or strength on the bench.

The AFL-CIO has been emasculated by economics and neo-cons on the NLRB.

We lefties need an invigorated farm team system - and Soros has both the dedication and money to start us back.

can shove it up their collective ASSES. These people can do whatever the hell they want with their money. It just burns neocons up to see people with money on the left actively working to defeat the neocons.

How about the BILLIONS Moon, Scaife, Coors and the rest of those scumbags have spent on the Moonie Times, the Federalist Society, and more propaganda-spewing "think tanks" than you can shake a stick at?

I love our fair and open press.

Haven't you forgotten that only right-wing fascist pigs are allowed to be super-rich. :eyes: </sarcasm off>

:)

according to one person involved, is “joint investment to build intellectual infrastructure”. "

I think a media venture could be what they have in mind

:bounce:

he has good security....(Wellstone)

From the link:
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.�


That's fine, but this needs to be more than a jobs program for progressive policy experts.

In addition to progressive radio and TV, we also need to invest in infrastructure at the state level.

Here's a radical idea: Why not spend some money to start a company to compete with Diebold in the manufacturing of voting equipment -- and then donate some of those machines to counties with large numbers of African-American voters who usually have to wait in line for hours to vote because their precincts always get the crappiest machines.

for $12 million.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2944255#2944324

then the Repugs will claim BIAS! And probably pass a law that says that donated machines cannot use proprietary software...

fundamental goals? I know he wants to further the progressive agenda, but does anyone have a good link for what, specifically, he wants to achieve?

Buy a major media market, and tackle electronic voting. I love, love, love Soros!

the way we vote. We have to get rid of the electronic voting machines all together. As far I know, it sounds like optical scanning machines that at least leave a countable paper trail are the best way to go. I can see all these billionaires pouring all this money into our progressive causes and it won't matter a bit if the republicans can still steal the votes with the voting equipment. I realize now, that there are just enough die-hard republicans to vote for * or anyone who follows him , to let those few thousand rigged votes here and there add up to a consistent republican win in every election. Or at least the top elections that count the most. I'm still in shock that the Democratic Governor of Washington pulled that one out. She's my hero and the only thing that gives me hope. But, her race was very close. If *, or the next republican running, can pull off this 3 million vote win, which I will NEVER believe really happened, the Democratic opponent, like Kerry, will look at that and give up.

Verified voting is step number 1. Without that, nothing else matters, and you stated.

Yes, there are sincere people who are rich who do NOT want a RADICAL RIGHT WING agenda shoved up their asses! I take them at their word on this.

but it's okay to amend the Constitution to allow a foreign-born individual to be POTUS?

Is Soros naturalized? Does it really matter if he's not? Specifically, who has criticized Soros?

Thanks again "Liberal" media for that fair and balanced report. :eyes:

he can worry about the media -- which is also a much-needed area of investment for progressive-minded money brokers. But the number one is the voting machines. There has to be a voter-verified paper ballot AND A REQUIRED AUDIT FOR EVERY ELECTION. Without those two things, it's not possible to have a democracy. Unless the counting of the votes can be validated and checked in a way that is transparent and satisfactory for all parties, a democracy just isn't possible.

and I don't think we would be doing this hand-wringing if the will of the people was truly reflected by the way the election was presented.

I also want an inventory...something like the little elctronic dot that wal-mart requires on its products to prevent theft and use as a tool for co-ordinating transportation, supply and demand, etc. This would require a paper ballot coded to the precinct...say, from a to e are ballots of this specific area, shuffled so no order can be traced to specific voters. Because of all the research I have been reading concerning statistical analysis (thanks for the confusion TIA, just kidding) used to determine veracity of elections based on voter choices, I thought of the researchers and how hard it must be for them and how much easier it would be to have a business-type system that could be examined and results tested. Then, I thought that business uses these tools in order to be more competative and responsive to the market and some might be suspicious of the great quantity of information that could be reduced easily by having a dot on the ballot...information that might be manipulated, sic. used against them. But, then I thought this would be like open source, that the information would be available to all and this would keep the playing field level and might engender more responsiveness and understanding in government. I think such a way of addressing issues may present a more diverse perspective of what people want as, say, compared to two-party systems, run-offs, minority control of pivotal areas...media, grants, NGOs. It would allow for feed-back in many different ways if the data was available to all.

So, I relate this to Soros because he is a business man and a progressive...two characteristics which people feel a need to point-out because we are stuck in an either, or/pig-looser/ democratic-republican mind set that doesn't reflect reality. On a business note, also, maybe the vote system to require bar codes had behind it the idea of garnering information but without free access to that information it would be manipulative and anti-democratic.

The ballots could be hand-counted and then run through a machine for auditing. The chain of command for the ballots would be based on thier code...no stealing, loosing, misplacing.

This is the latest kick I'm on...it makes sense to me. I'm still thinking on it.

launch several leading progressive organizations, including MoveOn and ACT which together moblized and educated millions of people.
This is the kind of �joint investment to build intellectual infrastructure� that helped jump start progressive actions, along with progressive office holders, and people like Michael Moore, and millions of individuals.

Wealthy liberal philathropists are one of the many key players that will help us reform elections, the media and foreign policies.

Maybe they will even purchase that "progressive CNN" we'd all like to see.

They were in existence LONG before he turned around and noticed them and gave them ANYTHING.

even though I'd like to, since I'm a flaming liberal. My suspicion is that he has an agenda that isn't what we wish it was. Read the following and do more research before jumping on the Soros bandwagon.

George Soros: Prophet of an "Open Society"
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/TAL307A.html

<snip>

�Soros is angry not at Bush�s aims---of expanding Pax Americana and making the world safe for global capitalists like himself�but with the crass and blundering way Bush is going about it. By making U.S. ambitions so clear, the Bush gang has committed the cardinal sin of giving the game away. For years, Soros and his NGOs have gone about their work extending the boundaries of the �free world� so skillfully that hardly anyone noticed. Now a Texan redneck and a gang of overzealous neo-cons have blown it�

Soros� way is to use a few billion dollars, some NGOs and a �nod and wink from the U.S. State department� to bring down foreign governments that are �bad for business� to seize a nation�s assets, and even get thanked for your �benevolence,�� according to Clark. This method has worked for Soros and his cohorts.

Take the collapse of the Soviet Union, for example. Clark points out that �Soros� role was crucial: �From 1979, he distributed $3 million a year to dissidents including Poland�s solidarity movement, Charter 77 in Czechoslovakia and Andrei Sakharov in the Soviet Union. In 1984, he founded his first Open Society Institute in Hungary and pumped millions of dollars into opposition movements and independent media. Ostensibly aimed at building up a �civil society�, these initiatives were designed to weaken the existing political structures and pave the way for eastern Europe�s eventual exploitation by global capital. Soros now claims with characteristic immodesty, that he was responsible for the �Americanization� of eastern Europe.�

<snip>

And, here's a bio on Soros:

http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/business/george-soros/

I prefer to look at his whole record, which is impressive one has to admit.

BTW, Pretty blatantly biased writer you've pulled up here with lots of allegations but no sources.

And Rotten.com, a pretty hateful site and true to its name.

The gutting of the middle class, policies discouraging higher-education, and outrageous fiscal irresponsibility will only hurt the US economy in the long run, not to mention what chimpy has done to make America universally hated. What is good for business can also be good for everyone else.

just because Soros is an enemy of Bush doesn't mean he's a friend of the people (poor and middle class). Here are some words from Michael C. Ruppert (author of "Crossing the Rubicon") who has credibility in my eyes. This was written in October 2003:

Beyond Bush II, by Michael C. Ruppert
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/102003_beyond_bush_2.html

<snip>

Major power brokers like international financier George Soros are backing moves to remove Bush, and Soros is opening his sizeable checkbook to do it. I was dismayed recently to see that a board member of the ostensibly independent Pacifica radio network advocated direct solicitation of funds from both Soros and the CIA-connected Ford Foundation. Soros, who has or had business ties with Zbigniew Brzezinski, Henry Kissinger, the Carlyle Group, the CIA's Radio Free Europe, Wesley Clark, Richard Allen and George W. Bush (through Harken Energy), is not a friendly, tree-hugging, progressive out to save the world. He is the fist in a velvet glove to the Neocons' baseball bat across the nose.

Soros, a member of both the Council on Foreign Relations and the Bilderberger Group, also sits on the World Economic Forum with many Rockefeller interests. (Two excellent biographies of Soros are "George Soros: Imperial Wizard by Heather Cottin (Covert Action Quarterly, Fall 2002) http://www.canadiandimension.mb.ca/extra/d1207hc.htm and George Soros: Prophet of an Open Society by Karen Talbot at http://globalresearch.ca/articles/TAL307A.html .)

(edited to add link to article by Heather Cottin)

And if the Jewish saying doesn't work, I have relatives who tell me "Sometimes, ya don't get to choose yer dance partner."

I admit to not having done all my homework here, but it seems to me that even if Soros & Co. aren't perfect, they're allies in putting the neocons back under the slimy rock they crawled out from.

I'm not an authority on Soros by any means, but I wanted to interject these facts and viewpoints since I'd read a number of things about Soros in the past that raised red flags.

We liberals have been burned a lot over the years, and I think skepticism can only be a good thing.... sorta like "eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."

I'd love to be wrong about Soros, and find out that he's a gleaming knight in shining armor, here to save the world.... but, let's get real.

Why do I always feel that we're having to settle with the lesser of the evils?

Reich wing's distorted version of reality has been shoved down our throats long enough. This is a long overdue development.

where is Bill Gates in all this.

I guess these folks realize that all rich folks potentially stand to loss or gain money in politics now since the whole country has been bought by the Bushes and their evil cronies.

If I were so positioned I'd sure as hell want to position myself to prevent a murikan monopoly that could last 100 years or more.

Gives more money to Democrats than Republicans. Microsoft gives more to Democrats than Republicans. To his credit, most of his money goes to AIDS victims in Africa.

or help establish a network to counter FOX

The most pressing issue facing us is the fact that we cannot have legitimate elections in this country. Any money dumped into funding liberal agenda items is going to be pointless if people can't even vote for people representing those ideas, it is a wasted investment. I am having a hard time contacting him, so any of you who have real connections to people please try to get Soros on board with election reform. You can also point him to

http://www.openvotingconsortium.org/

as another project that could use help.
If we get enough emails to this group and raise the issue, they are mostly likely going to take notice and take action. I can't do it alone though, so please help!

We have great ideas. WE have the moral highground. But with no outlet to get truth into starving minds, we will remain stuck.

I'm sure brave actions like this will encourage other well-heeled progressives to get on the bus. Snowball effect.

had no idea. Thanks!

The success of the right really dates from the time when people with serious money started putting a lot of it into various institutes and so-called think tanks which obligingly generated the kinds of reports and conclusions the rich ideologues wanted. I remember during the Reagan years the rush of brainpower into the conservative movement on the flimsiest of premises, because that was where the money was.

Today it is the same: if you are a young political analyst or mover on the make, where are you going to gravitate - where the gravy is, or where the deprivation is? These kids all want the trophy wife, the SUV, the McMansion with the lawyer foyer, and signing on to the right gets them all those good things. They simply have to prostitute themselves, which of course this being America, no problem, dude.

Will the case now be the same on the left? Not necessarily - but the important thing is that a lot of potentially progressive thinkers will be able to make a living pursuing their progressive ideas instead of being penalized, pauperized and punished. Thank you George Soros. America needs you now as Eastern Europe did back then.

:dem: