Soros: I Can’t Stop a Republican ‘Avalanche’

[TeaBagsAreForCups]

Source: New York Times

October 11, 2010, 8:38am

George Soros, the billionaire financier who was an energetic Democratic donor in the last several election cycles but is sitting this one out, is not feeling optimistic about Democratic prospects.

“I made an exception getting involved in 2004,” Mr. Soros, 80, said in a brief interview Friday at a forum sponsored by the Bretton Woods Committee, which promotes understanding of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

“And since I didn’t succeed in 2004, I remained engaged in 2006 and 2008. But I’m basically not a party man. I’d just been forced into that situation by what I considered the excesses of the Bush administration.”

Mr. Soros, a champion of liberal causes, has been directing his money to groups that work on health care and the environment, rather than electoral politics. Asked if the prospect of Republican control of one or both houses of Congress concerned him, he said: “It does, because I think they are pushing the wrong policies, but I’m not in a position to stop it. I don’t believe in standing in the way of an avalanche.”

Read more: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/11/soros-i-cant-stop-a-republican-avalanche/

---

Dad is pulling the credit card, indeed. Many of us feel the same way, George.

[Taverner]

1. Sometimes people need to see the long picture

Not the 'Big Picture' but the long picture

200 years from now, what will we say about today?

50 years from now...

25 years from now...

[Winterblues]

2. I think what we will say is Democrats blew a golden opportunity

They could NEVER have asked for anything better than what they were handed in '08. They had super majorities in both Houses and held the Whitehouse and passed bills specifically for Wall Street and said the Hell with Main Street...Probably will not get another opportunity in my lifetime...:shrug: and they want us to be enthusiastic...

[Taverner]

4. Yes we did - and I agree with much of what you said

However, once again, the Republicans blew a fuse and went crazy. Once again. It killed them with the 'silent majority.' It killed them with the 'Reagan Revolution' and it killed them with 'Bush911!911!TORATORATORA!!!' And its killing them with 'Tea Party Patriot (TEABAGGERS!!!!)'

We were given a golden opportunity and we, the Democrats pissed away the Obama victory and hopefully won't piss away the Teabag Crazy Opportunity.

[cstanleytech]

8. Well they could have tried to do more true enough but

I am not so sure they could have succeeded at accomplishing much more with as little time as they have had to fix the 8+ years of damage the republicans did to the nation as a whole especially since the republicans have been fighting them tooth and nail on the tiniest issue.

[regnaD kciN]

9. Horseshit

They passed a stimulus bill big business opposed...a health-care bill the insurance companies opposed...a financial-services reform Wall Street opposed...and a credit-card reform act the banks opposed. As Rachel Maddow put it, "the last time a President accomplished so much in such a short period of time, booze was illegal."

Let's put it this way: if Obama and the congressional Democrats were Wall Street's best buddies, why is the Chamber of Commerce spending billions to drive them out of office?

Yes, the Democrats "blew a golden opportunity." But not the Obama administration -- the progressive "purity pricks" who look at a glass that's three-quarters full and declare it "totally empty." That waited to pounce on whatever Obama did that wasn't 100% what they wanted, and then loudly denounce it as a "betrayal" and him as a "sellout." That have no problem with smugly sitting back and letting the Republicans take over, in order to get some sort of twisted "revenge" against Obama for not handing them everything they wanted on a silver platter.

I'm sorry to say it, but the past two years have convinced me that there's a good reason why Republicans are in power about 80% of the time -- rank-and-file Republicans have the long-term goal of gaining and amassing power. Rank-and-file Democratic activists, OTOH, have the long-term goal of demonstrating their "purity" on every possible issue, and rejecting any accomplishments or changes that don't meet their unachievable-in-the-real-world standards. In short, too many Democrats -- most definitely including many on this board -- would rather sit back and claim to be 100% pure than actually get anything accomplished. It should be no surprise when that's exactly what they wind up getting.

:spank:

[elias7]

15. right on...

[TheEuclideanOne]

16. I call bullshit.

I don't have the energy to give you a blow by blow of why you should not be happy with your list of accomplishments. I think that the only thing you left out is how Dems are all a bunch of whiners.

Okay, let me flip this around to you. Since you acknowledged that the Republicans are good at amassing power, what do you think they would have accomplished if they had the same goals as democrats (playing pretend here) and they were in the Dems shoes?

[northernlights]

22. there was no healthcare bill

Health INSURANCE is not health CARE.

Your health INSURER has never and will never provide one iota, one millisecond, one milligram or one milliliter of health CARE.

They passed a health INSURANCE bill that RAISED the cost of health INSURANCE, instead of lowering it; that will provide INSURANCE to one set of people while denying care to another, and that will force more and more people into OPTING OUT and paying the PENALTY because they simply can't afford it.

Forcing people to buy a shitty private "service" that does not contribute anything to the actual product, but instead only skims profits off the top (and middle) is not a good thing in any way, shape or form.

And PULEEZE do not compare it to requiring auto insurance. I can CHOOSE to have a car or not. I can CHOOSE a new car or a used one. I can CHOOSE a mazerati or a chevy. And if I drive like an asshole, I can cause damage and death to many others, whereas if I live a high-risk, fat and sugar-filled life, I'm the only one who suffers. And my auto insurance company has never once denied me a claim. Whereas my former supposed high-quality health INSURANCE thieves left me to die to save themselves the expense of a simple white count and differential, never mind a CBC.

[Art_from_Ark]

34. Another thing about auto insurance

You are only required to have auto insurance to cover damage that you may inflict upon other people and property-- you are not required to insure yourself or your property. And if you are a good driver, you can get a nice discount on your premium-- and they don't suddenly jack up your rates once you turn 45, or 50, or 55.

[woo me with science]

49. +1000 nt

[dflprincess]

50. +1000

:applause:

[Tesha]

23. See, that's the funny thing about Republicans.

You can do exactly what they want and they'll *STILL* support
other Republicans when election time rolls around; they know
how to take from suckers and fools without feeling any need
to reward them.

That's why it WAS FREAKING IMPORTANT that Obama and his
cronies should have supported Democratic ideals rather than
Republicans ideals. Because if he had, we'd all be "fired up;
ready to go"! But as it is, having been screwed as many times
as we have been, many of us are feeling like maybe we'll just
let them depend on their "new friends"; maybe it will be a
learning experience for them? But probably not; they seem
pretty incapable of learning.

Tesha

[TeaBagsAreForCups]

54. Nicely stated...

...thanks.

[treestar]

71. Ridiculous post

And you're making the point about "purity."

No, the Rs do not get all their purists want. Their purists just don't give up easily and settle, for now, for some progress, no matter how little. In fact they will take the smallest leap in their direction as a sign they will get it all.

[DCBob]

24. +1

Democrats are a party of diverse people with diverse opinions. That is a good thing but also a bad thing since we seem to spend more time fighting each other than the opposition.

[Amonester]

25. The right-wing's own "purity pricks" win 80% of the time, because...

The right-wing's "purity pricks" (the teabagsters) win because their wicked leaders LISTEN to what they want and give it to them. They also LISTEN to what they DON'T WANT and BLOCK everything on their behalf when they are not in power (officially, but by succeeding at that, they still are in a position of power, even if they are in the minority).

When was the last time the DEMS in power effectively LISTENED to what the left-wing activists wanted? And what if they did that just once, they wouldn't be defeated the next rounds? 1931-1949??

:spank: :spank:

[SemiCharmedQuark]

62. You do know the Dems got a drubbing in the 1938 election, right:?

Sort of common knowledge...effectively killed the New Deal.

[treestar]

70. Not true, they only get about 10% of what they want

They get wars but they haven't begun to repeal the social programs they would like to repeal, or go backward on the social questions. Even Republican leaders work in the system. They don't have the power to just deliver goodies. And to the extent they do, it is because they know they have fanatical backing that will not just give up in two years but stick to it for decades with little hope.

[defendandprotect]

74. Democrats have also been more than helpful ....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4569428&mesg_id=4573118


PLUS, keep in mind that MSM gets 80% of the campaign finance money so they aren't

going to argue that it be curtailed!

[FedUp_Queer]

39. MMMM....yeah....I'm going to have to disagree...

The deal is on so many issues Obama did not push with the same zeal he ran his campaign:

1) Your argument is a red herring. Let's start with the people Obama put in power on the financial side of the coin: Tim Geithner and Lawrence Summers for starters...right out of banking and Wall Street. He hired Robert Rubin as an advisor...the Chair of Citigroup (the ultimate evil.) The major banks (recipients of TARP) got off easy (with the "stress tests" and the continued use of the "hidden TARP" which was the $23 Trillion banks got in 0% interest loans from the Fed discount window.) The statement "if Obama and the congressional Democrats were Wall Street's best buddies, why is the Chamber of Commerce spending billions to drive them out of office?" is the perfect example of a red herring because that's not the issue. The issue is who is better for Wall Street. Certainly, that is the GOP. That does NOT mean that Obama has really reined in Wall Street (or has been a thorn in their side), which is why they are flocking to the GOP. The thing is, we have to settle for the lesser of two evils. Wall Street and the corporations get to chose the better of two "angels."

2) Health care: he sold out to big pharma (Billy Tauzin) and the insurance companies before he even started. The public option was never on the table.

3) GITMO: still open and Bagram (really GITMO west) getting bigger).

4) State Secrets: Under Bush used to dismiss cases people were bringing. Obama is doing the same thing. However, he went further. The Justice Department under Obama has argued the Federal Government has complete immunity from suits (check on the eff.org suit).

5) Indefinite detention: In a speech at the National Archives (irony?), Obama addressed the people at GITMO. He came out in support of indefinite detention even for people whom a court or military commission tried and found not guilty.

6) DADT: I get that it takes time. I have no problem with that. However, when the White House is telling a Congressman who wanted had proposed a bill to "zero out" funding for the policy'senforcement to stop (http://www.postonpolitics.com/2009/07/hastings-says-white-house-colleagues-pressed-him-to-drop-dont-ask-dont-tell-amendment/), that's where the White House steps over the line.

The common thread here is not that it's a glass 1/2 full or a work in progress. Too many times, the White House is going further than Bush did or actually working against what it says it's publicly for.

Finally, I think your assessment of your '80% rule' is wrong. It's not about "purity." It's that people look at the two parties and see one which at least fights for its agenda and one that doesn't. Right or wrong, the people will always go for someone "who stands for something and follows through" rather than someone "who says they stand for something then compromises at the first sign of resistance."

On all of these, had he just pushed and used the bully pulpit, I think we would be further. The issue is not well, we didn't get 100% (frankly, as a gay person the notion that on issues as civil rights less than 100% equality (which of course is ridiculous because one is equal or they're not) is not acceptable). The issue is progress. The Democrats START from a compromised position. That is the "issue."

[provis99]

45. ah, the old "stabbed in the back" theory.

well, it works for certain European parties...

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

59. PREACH!! This is the post of the year! I could not have said it any better! n/t

[treestar]

69. +1

Have to say for Republicans they can work at it without getting discouraged. They are out of power for the past four years, and still try for things that are pipe dreams. Democrats get 80% of what they want and it is nothing and they give up. Giving yet more opportunities to Republicans. I'm beginning to think most Democrats are not serious. They want it easy or they cave to the Republicans.

[emilyg]

10. Hard to be enthusiastic.

[MissDeeds]

11. I agree

Democrats did indeed blow a golden opportunity, and they alienated the base in the process. If they lose seats in November, it's their own damn fault.

[Captain Boomerang]

19. "It's their own damn fault."

Okay... so you're are not a Democrat. (Got it.)

[MissDeeds]

27. Yes, I am a Democrat

And have been for 40 years. I am not, however, a conserva-dem, neo-dem, or dino. Nice try.

[Captain Boomerang]

29. Oh... okay, just a typo then.

:eyes:

[demwing]

41. Well, since you just made a typo and admitted it openly

we forgive you :)

[Shining Jack]

32. +1 n/t

[Iowa]

52. Read before posting. The poster you responded to neither stated nor implied any such thing.

[still_one]

12. That is if you assume that all Democrats are FDR or Johnson Democrats which they are not

The sad truth is we really never had a majority in Congress. That was a myth perpetrated by the MSM

A lot of the blue dog democrats would not even be considered Democrats, and how can you convince someone to vote a certain way if ideologically they subscribe to the GOP philosophy?

When you essentially have 100% of the republicans voting against everything you present, and 1/3 of the Democratic vote in question on progressive legislation, you are fighting an uphill battle

Yes, the administration didn't even fight for a public option, in HCR, but there is enough evidence that it would have never succeeded with the current makeup of the Democratic party

The Democrats didn't really fail, they were setup to lose

If there was a mistake that the leadership made, it was that they should have realized within a few months that compromise was not possible

It is very clear to me that this country is not liberal. There have been certain periods were progressive ideas have gotten through, but for the most part it not only conservative, but intolerant

That it would take until 1963 for the Civil Rights Act to become law is unbelievable, and that they couldn't event get the Equal Rights Amendment to pass only serves to exemplify this

[Jackpine Radical]

35. So why did the Dem power brokers back Blue Dogs against progressives

in the Primaries?

Blanche Lincoln v. Bill Halter, for example.

"A lot of the blue dog democrats would not even be considered Democrats"

If the Dems have to go down (and I'm actively doing my bit to stop that from happening), I would feel a whole lot better if they went down fighting for my interests than if they end up drowning while trying to swim toward the corporate cash boat.

[still_one]

44. I won't argue that, but my point was that we could not have won because the difference within the

party were too great

[Greyhound]

67. I don't agree. There was a time that a Democratic administration would come in with its agenda and

use the time-tested techniques of lining up its members even before taking office.

No way in hell would a Lieberman be allowed to sit on, let alone chair, an important committee without a firm deal in hand, and the first time that whiny little piece of shit hinted at backing out, he'd be out in the cold looking in for the remainder of his last term.

Max Baucus? You've got to be kidding me, he can serve out his term as an alternate on Indian Affairs. Nelsons? Again, there is new leadership in town and if you don't play ball with us, you won't play at all, period. Politics is ugly and if you want to play that game, you better expect to get bloody.

Politicians are (with very few exceptions) cowards and bullies, and like all bullies when they see one of their own beat to a pulp they fall right in line.

The NewBlue3rdwayDLCFreedomFoundationwhateverthey'recallingthemselvethisweek politicians can be just as "creative" in dealing with their constituents as they are with everything else in "explaining" why they couldn't do such and such, thanks to Obama, they just didn't have to.

[Greyhound]

66. "OW! My Balls!"

:rofl:

[sequioa]

3. Soros

Boo-Hoo Go smoke a joint and dream about all the dough you made off the Brazilian oil rigs.

[sequioa]

5. Soros

I'm actually with Soros on legalizing so we can bust the drug cartels. But that is a long way away.

[msongs]

6. dems need to give people something worth voting for first of all nt

[stray cat]

7. If DUers are not working their butts off why expect someone else to do it?

[Kelvin Mace]

13. Way to go Obama!

This is what happens when you decide your bi-partisan fetish is more important than keeping promises to your base.

[elias7]

17. see post #9

What an awful and cynical way to characterize the last two years. You must not really "get" politics...

[davidwparker]

40. see #38

[demwing]

42. I don't know about the OP, but I DON"T get politics

I don't get it when a candidate campaigns on Hope and Change and delivers none of either.

Do you "get that"?

I suppose I'm just naive for expecting a Democrat to tell the truth, right? Becuse that's why I feel let down. If there is an enthusiasm gap in my heart, it's because of that naivete.

I REALLY had hope. I REALLY expected change.

And, apparently, I REALLY was a chump who does not "get it" and does not want to, either.

[davidwparker]

38. +1

I see your point and have felt the same thing. #9 makes good points, too.

I plan to show up and vote if for no other reason than to keep the (R)'s out of power. Had they done anything but obstruct, and the country went south due to Obama's policies, then I would not care about 2010.

But, if the (R)'s succeed, then you/me/we will be rewarding their foot-stomping tantrums at the expense of what is best for THIS country.

on edit: added more detail

[Iowa]

53. +1

[Qutzupalotl]

14. But we can!

See you in November!

[Ramulux]

18. Guys a dumbass

I dont understand his logic. He wastes huge amounts of money in 2004, 2006, and 2008 in order to get a democratic majority and now when it is at risk of disappearing he feels like giving up. I realize he is free to do whatever he wants with his money but I dont understand why you would spend so much to prop up the dems and then bail when they really need help.

[savalez]

20. Misleading Title. He doesn't actually say that.

He said, "It does, because I think they are pushing the wrong policies, but I’m not in a position to stop it. I don’t believe in standing in the way of an avalanche."

The title could have just as well read, "Soros: Republicans pushing wrong policies"

[bemildred]

21. That's OK, we will take care of it. nt

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

33. You know

you teabaggers were amusing for about 5 minutes. It's not even cute anymore. You sound like a goddamn imbecile. Obama race baiting? Pelosi/Reid shoving down blah blah blah. The health care bill was no more radical than the Romney/Dole plan. They bent over backwards to get Scott Brown's vote on the financial reform. Tell me exactly what was "shoved down people's throats"......... Why the fuck do I even bother?

[mcollier]

36. Convincing the problem to change into the solution

is much much harder than coordinating the resolution to activate the solution...

The inactive potential democratic voter must mature into the active voter. Now is the time.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

37. I get what you're saying. But I just like calling out teabaggers whenever I can. nt

[Captain Boomerang]

28. It does not matter how many shills you stuff into a forum

McCain & Pailhead lost and you should really get over it.

[sequioa]

30. Pailhead

Palins hair does look like a pail.

[sequioa]

31. Get over what?

They lost, this is news(???), what's your point?

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

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

[wisteria]

46. We don't need Soros to raise money. He became a major talking point for Repubs anyway.

And, I don't share his view of an avalanche.

[roamer65]

47. I don't think it will be a Rethug "avalanche"

I think people are so splintered that we are going to end up near 50-50. We will have the American equivalent of a "hung parliament"...just like Canada, Britain and Australia. Nothing will get done and the economy will get worse.

[wisteria]

48. I hope it isn't that close-we have this government now.n/t

[rbilancia]

51. Oh bullshit. Dems are working hard all over this country. Quit the negative shit and MAN UP !

[TeaBagsAreForCups]

57. Uhhhh. Sorry, No.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/140819/republicans-midterm-voting-enthusiasm-tops-prior-years.aspx




... that would be a fifteen point margin deficit for those "Dems working hard all over this country." Moreover, the rest of the data and narrative in the citation supplied more than supports that there is a distinctive Democratic malaise in the ether which certainly was not there the morning of January 20, 2009 when we were all ecstatic and looking to a new era.

Instead, we suffer more of the same old, same old, just a bit less dumb than in the prior incarnation.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

63. Gallup polls showed 2/3 of Americans thought Roosevelt hindered growth by being too hard on business

How Americans perceive things and reality are not the same thing.

[wisteria]

64. I think Pres. Obama has kept many of the promises he made when elected.

What is your problem? The economy is what it is-that wasn't his fault. Jobs take time to return-that is a fact and he told us so a long time ago. He has to govern and appease all the people not just some, and I think he has done a good job. I don't believe this Gallop poll-it sets out to prove its own point and drive a certain negative message about Democrats this season.

[Canuckistanian]

55. Another uninformed billionaire.

Ho-hum.

[grantcart]

56. Many of us feel the same way, George but then again many of us lead with our

feelings and not with our heads.

The only thing that could have changed the landscape significantly was if the Dem Caucus changed the Senate Rules eliminating the filibuster.

Coming after the election of the first Black President it would have stroked the paranoid anger even more. Even independents would wonder why are they changing the basic rules.

The OP makes perfect sense, if you can't count to 60.

[spanone]

58. i disagree wholeheartedly, george

you above all should know how bu$h* left this country fucked.....

you can't fix it in 20 months with a congress that tells you to go fuck yourself every chance they get

keep your money

[Rex]

60. Don't worry Soros, no one thinks you can compete with Communist China

hell I wouldn't be surprised if Iran is funding the Repuke-Teabagger lovefest too!

Repukes = Communist China.

Pass it around!

[L0oniX]

61. Ð å M Ñ â T î ø Ñ

[Greyhound]

65. "The avalanche has begun, it's too late for the pebbles to vote" - Kosh

Interesting times...

[Mimosa]

68. K&R

Sad.

[treestar]

72. It's his money

If he wants to be a passive Republican, no one can stop him.

We however, do not have to give up.

[wisteria]

73. Actually, I think he lost us votes in 2004 and has become a fundraising name for Repubs. n/t