George Soros

I kinda sorta recall his name coming up in some stories about less-than-ethical financial manipulation of foreign markets some time ago. He made a ton on currency trading or whatever it's called. I dunno. Economics is just a lot of fancy words for money as far as I'm concerned. But I've heard his name in the news before, and businessmen don't generally get their names in the news for good reasons.But even if he's a creep in the boardroom, so what? Senator Byrd is an ex-Klansman, but he and I are of one opinion regarding Bush's work as well.

I think it's so cool that some rich bugger is coming out and saying point blank "I'm giving away millions to see you lose the election, Mr. Bush." It makes a nice change from all those other rich buggers who pay millions to see their puppets win, doesn't it?

That article brought a smile to my face. And his Supremacist comparisons are absolutely spot-on.

Rock on that man. I especially like his alarm at Bushes view of himself in the light of 9-11.

I think that any conservative that has the gall to bash George Soros should first read up a bit on Richard Mellon Scaife.

Even if Soros spends a few million dollars and is the direct cause of Bush losing in 2004, it'd be nothing compared to Scaife's influence on the GOP/conservatives.

Like Ted Truner's billion dollar donation to the U.N., you've got to admire a rich guy who will put his money where his mouth is. Still, whether it's Richard Mellon Scaife or Soros, all of these soft money contributions are just a way to get around campaign finance laws as they currently stand. Since Soros has donated upwards of $15 million in soft money, it won't be long before a conservative like Scaife steps up and does the same (if he hasn't already). And the Dems will still have a long way to go to catch up to President Bush's legit fundraising machine.

My biggest concern is the access to a new administration Soros will undoubtedly gain should Bush be defeated in 2004. This is a big reason why McCain and others push campaign finance reform so hard, to keep rich guys/corporations from buying governmental influence through campaign contributions. Soros has every right under current laws to do what he is doing, but it will be interesting to see whether or not: 1. the winning Dem candidate feels obligated to pay back Soros with influence in the new administration and 2. Soros feels entitled to a certain degree of influence in the new administration.

With all the money flowing into Republican coffers due to Bush Jr.'s "permanent campaigning/fundraising" (the quotes from him today were all prefaced with, "...while attending a fundraiser in Michigan, Bush had this to say about yada yada yada..."), it would be interesting if Soros stood up and tried to match dollar-for-dollar, though it won't happen.

I've been doing a lot of reading lately about Lee Atwater and the "permanent campaigning" that was started when Atwater joined the White House with the election of Reagan and I really have to say, Atwater is FASCINATING AS HELL. He really "got it" as far as what the American people want these days out of a President and how to get money AND votes. Anybody else read that Atwater bio by John Brady, "Bad Boy?" Interesting, interesting stuff.