Gore versus Clinton on corporations

[welshTerrier2]

Corporate candidate Clinton had this to say about what she views as the very legitimate role corporations should be allowed to play in influencing national policy:

“A lot of those lobbyists, whether you like it or not, represent real Americans,” Mrs. Clinton said, raising her voice over a cacophony of booing and hissing. “They represent nurses. They represent, you know, social workers. They represent — yes — they represent corporations.” Nurses? No problem. They are PEOPLE. Social workers? No problem. They are people.

CORPORATIONS ARE REAL AMERICANS? there's an interesting argument endorsing "corporate personhood." Corporations are "FOR PROFIT LEGAL ENTITIES" that, by definition, put the pursuit of PROFIT above all other pursuits. Their goal is not to save lives or help people; their goal is to make money regardless of what impact doing so might have on the country.

Compare Mrs. Clinton's warped view of corporations to Mr. Gore's:

source: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/08/07/3038/

Gore: Polluters Finance Research to Cast Doubt on Global Warming

Research aimed at disputing the scientific consensus on global warming is part of a huge public misinformation campaign funded by some of the world’s largest carbon polluters, former Vice President Al Gore said Tuesday.

”There has been an organized campaign, financed to the tune of about $10 million a year from some of the largest carbon polluters, to create the impression that there is disagreement in the scientific community,” Gore said at a forum in Singapore. ”In actuality, there is very little disagreement.” 0807 05

Gore likened the campaign to the millions of dollars spent by U.S. tobacco companies years ago on creating the appearance of scientific debate on smoking’s harmful effects.

”This is one of the strongest of scientific consensus views in the history of science,” Gore said. ”We live in a world where what used to be called propaganda now has a major role to play in shaping public opinion.”

Gore calls corporate lobbying exactly what it is: propaganda. And Hillary calls the conduct of lying to Congress and lying to the American people legitimate? She's dangerous for this country. She'll do nothing to re-empower the American people and ban the corporate corruptors from the halls of government. In fact, she's one of them. She's a "real American" just like the corporations are.

[Clark2008]

1. I'm afraid this isn't just limited to HRC, Welsh.

In fact, nearly all the Dem candidates feel as HRC does, judging by their actions (not WORDS, Edwards fans, but ACTIONS).

That's why I'm having trouble finding a candidate.

[Buzz Clik]

5. I hear that.

[welshTerrier2]

7. can you provide some details about other candidates?

I'm sure what your saying is correct. The worst abuse of the American people is the military-industrial-Congressional complex. It's hard to imagine any of the other "leading" (where exactly are they leading us?) candidates have called for the massive cuts in the defense budget we so obviously need.

Nevertheless, Hillary's comments on the KOS convention were nothing short of obscene. I guess I should give her some credit for actually telling us what she believes. Unfortunately, what she believes is hideous. Worse than hideous, it's corporate endorsing hideous. Talk about having a deaf ear for the corporate stranglehold in Washington.

If the American people want to take their country back and take it away from the corporations that poison our democracy, Hillary has made it all too clear she won't help us achieve it.

[wyldwolf]

12. $11,000 from Pharma Lobbyists to Gore in 1999-2000

One last sign that the pharmaceutical lobby is warming to Gore:

$11,000 in contributions to Gore 2000 from PhRMA, Pfizer, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Genentech and Glaxo-Wellcome lobbyists in the first three months of 1999, including a thousand-dollar check from
Glaxo-Wellcome's Director of Government Relations on March 31.

http://lists.essential.org/pharm-policy/msg00126.html

[rinsd]

2. "Gore calls corporate lobbying exactly what it is: propaganda" Except he isn't.

”This is one of the strongest of scientific consensus views in the history of science,” Gore said. ”We live in a world where what used to be called propaganda now has a major role to play in shaping public opinion.”

He isn't referring to lobbying. He is referring to paid for science where the results are predetermined.

[welshTerrier2]

14. here's a quote from his book

source: The Assault on Reason p. 234

The classic problem facing advocates of a broad and effuse public interest who rely mainly of the force of argument and the rule of reason is that they simply do not have access to the same supplies of narrow special interests whose continued income is vitally affected by the decisions of the courts, the Congress, and the executive branch.

[rinsd]

20. That quote would have lent your OP better evidence.

Otherwise you just twisted what Hillary said with some demagoguery thrown in about corporations.

[welshTerrier2]

23. did I twist what Hillary said?

i kind of thought I put what she said in quotes.

Let's look at the issue together. I maintain that Hillary sees corporations as representing the interests of real Americans. The problem I have with her, is that, as corporate entities, corporations are NOT "real Americans." They have disproportionate wealth and power compared to real Americans. They have an "economic engine" to exert disproportionate power on the political process.

Is it fair to conclude from Hillary's comments that she does NOT see this as a major problem? I think it's more than reasonable. My interpretation of her comment is that whether she sees "political access" as a level playing field or not, she sees no problem with allowing these "real people" to try to sway legislation in their "special interest" direction and use their very unequal resources to do so.

While having every citizen get absolutely equal access to government may be an unachievable ideal, Hillary doesn't even set it as a goal. She seems to fully endorse the idea that those who can afford to pay the freight are entitled to buy whatever access they can afford.

All I can say to you is that you might just want to read Gore's book. The entire book focuses on the critical need to re-empower the American people. When Hillary talks about nurses or social workers, those are the American people. When she lumps in corporations, especially while her hand reaches out to them for money, she's arguing for the status quo.

Let me ask you this: do you believe that special interests, especially corporate special interests, are catered to in Washington both in terms of access and in terms of legislation and policy? Do you believe there is "linkage" between campaign contributions and decisions made on Capitol Hill and at the White House? Do you believe that special interests are corrupting our democracy? Do you believe we need to fight for publically financed campaigns?

I see all of the above issues as the most critical issues we face. I don't believe we'll ever see real solutions to our many problems until the government is working for the people rather than working for the special interests. Health care? Forget it. We're going to get a corporate "solution" that will NOT solve the problem. Education? Forget it. No funds available because of the MIC. Infrastructure? The same - MIC is draining our resources. Global warming? Hundreds of millions of people could die. Hundreds of millions. But the polluters should be allowed to have their say just like "real Americans?????" Their motives are PROFITS. Period! They are spending serious money to lie to us.

Hillary's comment showed a total lack of awareness that the distortions of big money cause in the political process. Does she have no awareness the MIC is doing to other critical national priorities? Does she understand that Big Oil pushed hard for the invasion of Iraq? Does she understand that real health care solutions are being blocked by commercial interests? Does she understand that the Medicare bill catered to Big Pharma?

What do you think about the role of corporations on the political process? Are you OK with the status quo? BTW, I'm not "anti-business" or "anti-commerce" or even "anti-profits." I have no problem with corporations trying to make money. But to give them better access to our government and give them policies that cater to them against the best interests of the American people is not what the Founders had in mind. We are facing a major crisis and the loss of our democracy to big money and Hillary seems to have chosen the wrong "real Americans" to side with.

[Buzz Clik]

3. Let's not get carried away. They are both politicians and carry lots of baggage.

Remember this? Gore's contribution to the political lexicon, stemming from the solicitation of funds for a campaign while using a Whitehouse telephone:

"There is no controlling legal authority that says this was in violation of law."

-- Al Gore, seven times (in one form or another), White House news conference, March 3

[OpenSpace]

4. It seems you are confusing a lobbyist with a corporation.

There are thousands of different lobbying groups in D.C. There are groups that lobby for stem cell research, groups that lobby for 'the right to choose' groups that lobby for the environment. Most of these are not affiliated with corporate or 'for profit' America. Mrs. Clinton was dead-on accurate that these groups represent real people and she should sit down with them and listen to what they say.

[polichick]

6. Thanks, very interesting...

Hillary's flip comment about corporations was a total cop-out ~ and then she switched into joke mode to distract the audience.

Good to see Gore speaks the truth!

[wyldwolf]

8. ..or this from Gore:

Corporations should match donations to faith-based orgs

We should encourage more private support for faith-based organizations. Employees commonly have their charitable contributions matched by their company. But rarely are faith-based programs approved for such matches. I call on the corporations of America to encourage and match contributions to faith- and values-based organizations. For too long, faith-based organizations have wrought miracles on a shoestring. With the steps I’m proposing today, they will no longer need to depend on faith alone.

Source: Speech on Faith-Based Organizations, Atlanta GA May 24, 1999

And here is what Labor thinks of Gore:

http://lpa.igc.org/lpv45/lpp45_mt_gore.html

[welshTerrier2]

9. ah, Gore 1.0

excellent points about Gore 1.0

it's good to know that, given a choice between Gore and Hillary, you would probably go with Gore. I knew you'd get it right.

[wyldwolf]

15. has he said "I'm sorry?" Has he refuted it?

Where did you get the impression I'd choose Gore over Hillary?

[welshTerrier2]

17. ummmmmm ... from you ...

do I need to use the search engine to show you your post?

i mean, the truth is, my memory stinks. sure, I could be wrong.

have I remembered your statement incorrectly?

[wyldwolf]

19. has he said "I'm sorry?" Has he refuted it?

[polichick]

10. Very old stuff...

Sort of like bringing back Hill's old healthcare stuff, except I liked that better than today's position.

If Gore decides to run, he'll have to explain his current views on NAFTA, etc. right off the bat.

[wyldwolf]

13. has he said "I'm sorry?" Has he refuted it?

[welshTerrier2]

16. have you read his book?

it would be interesting to know if you think what he's written is consistent with what I'm calling Gore 1.0.

[wyldwolf]

18. quote me relevant passages

[Name removed]

11. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[closeupready]

21. Gore actually discusses this in his book, Assault on Reason.

He has an entire chapter discussing this concept.

[Totally Committed]

22. GREAT book!

I'm re-reading it now.

TC

[Totally Committed]

24. kick

:kick:

for a great thread.

TC

[Uncle Joe]

25. One thing, I've noticed about the corporate media, when they describe "The Assault on Reason"

it's usually to the tune of, this book is an just an anti Bush screed, while that may hold true for the first section, "The Assault on Reason" is much more than that.

The corporate media make little or no mention of the larger thrust and implication of Al's best seller; warning of how dysfunctional and at risk our democratic republic has become, due to the ascent of corporate power and the one way effects of radio and television communication combined with advances in human psychology to basically brain wash the American People, at will. "The Assault on Reason" is an excellent historical summary of how we got to where we are today.

I would highly recommend this book to any one, regardless of your choice of candidate!

[welshTerrier2]

26. bush is transitory

you know, Uncle Joe, when I decided to read Gore's book, that's exactly what I was looking for.

it's fine to point out, as so many DU'ers do so often, how horrible bush has been. he's been the worst we've ever been stuck with.

but to target the man and not understand the forces hidden behind him fails to target the "sustaining" enemy. bush will be gone; the theft of our democracy will not be. had Gore written a perfect assault on bush, he would not have received any accolades from me. I see such targeting, in a sense, as misguided because it distracts us from our ultimate enemy. we can't afford that anymore. we are now in, as Churchill said, a "period of consequences":

source: The Assault on Reason by Al Gore (p. 210)

The era of procrastination, of half measures, of soothing and baffling expedients, of delays, is coming to a close. In its place, w are entering a period of consequences."

For me, Issue Number One has got to be the restoration of the Republic to its rightful owners. Remarkably, some label this as "left wing." I suppose from some perspective calling for reforms and the restoration of the Founders' vision is, indeed, radical. But it is a kind of radical, it seems to me, that should be advocated by left, right and center and all places in between. Is it "left" to call for fairness and shared power among the American people? Is it left that "special interests" should not set policy?

Can anyone truly argue on behalf of any candidate that their candidate has made this the central theme of their campaign? Are the American people being rallied to answer the call? The silence is deafening; it's a tragic prescription that will allow the entrenched power elite to maintain their control of our government. I fear time is truly running out on us all. As Rome collapses, they will grab all they can and sail away leaving the rest of us to battle over very limited space in the lifeboats.

[Uncle Joe]

27. I agree,

Bush is just a symptom of a much larger fundamental problem, and I believe if we haven't crossed the Rubicon yet, we're definitely resting on it's banks and I don't see any of the candidates addressing this issue.

[lyonn]

28. Lobbyist have tripled in Washington since bush took over

Since he has been in office only the corporations get special tax cuts, more freedom to merge and take over important companies like media for instance, throw in perks for pharma and hospitals. List anything that has been done to protect us? The cost of health care and medicine is over the top. Media- huh, they brainwash the public daily. George has got a court system that protects the corps, not the people. How much more protection or representation do the "corporate People need?? It bothers me that Hillary mentioned 2 real people lobbyist and then threw in corporations....

All presidential candidates, regardless of party, get at least token money just to keep the door open. Check out how Much Who gets.

[welshTerrier2]

29. that's exactly the point

to mention nurses and social workers in the same context as corporations is garbage. how much corporate welfare do we have in this country? how many bizillions of dollars are pumped into the multi-national corporations that go largely unaccounted for and unaudited?

how has Big Oil already benefited from the US invasion of and occupation of Iraq? The answer to that is that they've made hundreds of billions of dollars in all time record profits. They didn't push to invade Iraq because it was the right thing for the country; they did it to make money. How's that been working out for us all?

corporations are not "real Americans" and money does NOT equal "free speech" regardless of what the right-wing Supreme Court has said. We should fight to give equal access and equal weight to all Americans. To endorse a system that allows money to buy themselves a greater share of the government is an obscenity.

[lyonn]

30. Off topic sorta but,

Yesterday, I believe it was Babalonsister, who posted a Yahoo story in "Late Breaking News" that had to do with the Shiite in Southern Iraq and how the powers that be in that area cut the power to or from Baghdad. It was such an interesting article having to do with the locals taking over the political process in their area. It seems that is what should have happened from the day we stomped into Baghdad, let the locals take care of their own and not have our advisors and troops stomping all over them. This story was so worth reading. Iraq was soo mishandled and it sadly points to the dollar aspect. We had to stay there long enough to secure the oil, seems it took longer than they thought. Excuse me, they don't think, it's all gut reaction.

Edit: Rodeodance posted it. Just added comment to try to bump up her post.

[welshTerrier2]

31. check out this thread too ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3427136

[Totally Committed]

32. Bushie, you're doing a heck of a job!

Those poor people.

TC

[welshTerrier2]

33. the suffering is truly beyond comprehension

you know, TC, you get beyond bush and beyond the US politics and beyond the Iraqi politics and beyond the oil and beyond the regional factions and beyond the insurgency and all the other madness, and it's still 140 degrees with sewage contaminated drinking water and only around two hours of electrical power a day. you pile on top of that the daily deaths with almost every Iraqi knowing people who have died from this insanity. you strip the Iraqis of any hope for progress. and on and on and on it goes ...

it wasn't like that before we came to "save them" with "shock and awe" ...

[lyonn]

34. Damn, it all fits together

If we here on DU gather these bits of info, why do our Dem. candidates not make a bigger issue of what is really happening in Iraq? It is no secret since it is the printed word. Gotta watch MSNBC this evening (time?). Hope they venture out and get more specific, oops, on now.

[welshTerrier2]

35. the debate began at 7pm et (i.e. NOW)

it will be repeated at midnight (et) on MSNBC.