In 1945, at the end of World War 2, Massachusetts was the state in which most high quality leather shoes were produced. The industrial revolution began in Lowell, Massachusetts and the state was the largest producer of cotton cloth. Cotton, the real miracle fabric. Some manufacturing had spilled over into Rhode Island and Connecticut.

Erie, Pennsylvania was the home of General Electric Company’s single manufacturing plant producing all its home appliances. And making a lot of appliances for sale under the Kenmore name at Sears stores. Then the largest appliances maker and the largest retail store.

Massachusetts and Pennsylvania were leading states in America, in terms of per capita income, in the quality of life available in those states and in the infrastructure such as libraries, hospitals, museums, schools of higher learning, and a population that was high in rank for its general educational achievement. The accouterments of civilization.

South Carolina, Tennessee and Kentucky, OTOH, were backward when compared to the mid-Atlantic and Northeast states. Their roads were not as extensive, and not as good. Their schools were very much “basic” to be generous. Library shelves were half full and many of the books on hand were ragged and out-dated. Hospitals were nowhere near cutting edge. Wages were low, taxes were low because the population was too poor to pay more, and the states were a quarter century behind the “progressive” states in any way that was measurable.

Slowly at first, but then in a rush, the cotton mills moved out of Mass and headed to South Carolina. The climate is more temperate in SC, but that is not why Stevens Mills moved south. Southern politicians found they could get public support for offering incentives to northern industries to move south. Land was cheaper. And, it would all be new. New factories built to the latest production favoring designs. Machinery could be replaced with new re-engineered machines. It might even be cheaper to buy new than to crate and ship old machinery.

And Good Gawd A’mighty, those southerners could not spell UNION and were opposed to the idea anyway. It was as if J.P. Stevens had died and gone straight to heaven! He was being paid not to move anything! Leave all the old worn out stuff behind. Leave all those union workers who gripe every time he speeds up the production line, leave that all behind and move to SC, where they will build for him a new plant, equip it with new machinery, and furnished him a work force that prefers 10 hour days to any weak-kneed 8 hours stuff up north! Hey, we can’t read but we’re real men down here!

Mr Stevens - and all the 100s of other northern companies - got a new factory, lower taxes or no taxes, cheap and complaint labor that had a hatred of unions peached to them from every pulpit in the south. Barely deserving of the name, workers compensation insurance. It was a bonanza for the Rich and Famous. When you are giving away so much money that belongs to someone else, it is tempting to take some for yourself. We never looked into that because all the state’s law enforcers were working for the same goal, to get those northern plants down south. And what the heck, there was plenty of money to go around!

This same process took place with the shoe industry which moved much of it to Tennessee. For the same reasons. With the same results.

I lived in Louisville when GE made its move to Ky. It was called GE Appliance Park and it was the largest employer by far in Ky. 32,000 workers. In 6 huge bbuildings. Ranges in one, washers and dryers in another. Fridges in yet another. HVAC in still another. Appliance Park was the 4th largest “city” in Ky. The post-war housing boom was running full bore. Appliance Park ran 24/7, six days a week.

Appliance Park was contiguous with the City of Louisville on 2 sides. The City moved to annex the factory. GE went to Frankfort, the state capital, and “convinced” the legislators to amend the annexation statutes to require a city to annex as many people as workers in any plant. Louisville never got that many people to consent to annexation. The plant which enjoyed all the benefits of Louisville, had its own Louisville zip code, never paid taxes to Louisville.

Jack welch made millions in his shrewd handling of GE and is lauded around the MSNBC and History Channel as exemplary of America’s best and brightest!

My point is business takes, takes and takes more. It never gives back.

[edit on 4/1/2007 by donwhite]

NBC news has just reported the Clinton has earned twenty six million in campaign funds in the first quarter of this year. That is a new record. It also confirms the point that was made in the start of this thread, that who ever controls the money will control the election.
Figures for Obama has not been released but it was said they were expecting on the order of twenty two million.

Originally posted by donwhite
My point is business takes, takes and takes more. It never gives back.

Business, or more specifically competition from business, is responsible for almost every major technological breakthrough and discovery of historical significance in the history of mankind.

You start punishing businesses for being successful, and everyone feels the pain. But I guess that's OK so long as the pain is equally distributed, eh?

Sometimes I think Savage was right...

Originally posted by RedGolem
NBC news has just reported the Clinton has earned twenty six million in campaign funds in the first quarter of this year. That is a new record. It also confirms the point that was made in the start of this thread, that who ever controls the money will control the election.
Figures for Obama has not been released but it was said they were expecting on the order of twenty two million.

Ha. I knew she'd be the top fund raiser. With "Dollar Bill" in her corner, she'll be hard to beat. I'm waiting with some interest to see what the Obama numbers are. Open mind, folks. Open mind.

posted by Justin Oldham

posted by RedGolem
NBC news reported Clinton has twenty six million in campaign funds in the first quarter of this year. That is a new record. It also confirms the point that whoever controls the money will control the election. Figures for Obama have not been released but it was said they expect on the order of twenty two million.

I knew she'd be the top fund raiser. With "Dollar Bill" in her corner, she'll be hard to beat. I'm waiting with interest to see what the Obama numbers are. Open mind, folks. Open mind. [Edited by Don W]

It is 508 days from today - 4/2/07 - until the Dems Convention in Denver, on August 25, 2008. The GOP Convention opens on September 1, 2008, in St. Paul. Each convention is set to run 4 days, making the acceptance speeches due August 29 and September 5, respectively. Then, thank you Lord, we will have only 69 days of campaigning until the November 4 election.

All the serious candidates have rejected Federal funding. The annual 1040 checkoff for public financing of the presidential campaigns is dead. Whatever semblance of an open election is gone. As RedGolem has reminded us above, “ . . whoever controls the money will control the election.”

I want to remind you, it does not have to be that way. The 110 million Americans who are expected to vote in 2008 could have an open campaign, with a dozen debaters at each of a dozen debates, and the whole process made much shorter - say 30 days - and all of it paid for out of the public till, if the American voter wants it that way. A level playing field.

Or we can continue the way we are going, and someday not too far away, we will dispense with useless elections and just put the Presidency on eBay.

[edit on 4/2/2007 by donwhite]

Originally posted by RedGolem
NBC news has just reported the Clinton has earned twenty six million in campaign funds in the first quarter of this year. That is a new record. It also confirms the point that was made in the start of this thread, that who ever controls the money will control the election.

Of course she raised the most money. In my earlier post I pointed out that both she and Bill are known to meet with the Bilderberg group. A gathering of 100+ of the most influential world bankers, world industry giants, media conglomerates, etc.

I have no problem with this. But the fact they are meeting in secrecy, well, scares the hell out of me. It makes me wonder where their allegiance lies. If they are accepting money from these elitist's for their campaigning, do they owe these people? Of course they do. The fact our politicians are meeting without press coverage is a slap in democracy's face.

In my opinion we need more transparency in this day and age. Especially when it comes to lobbyist groups backing certain politicians. If we knew this information it would be much easier to decide who to vote for.

Also, if certain groups are providing money to both Republicans and Democrats. They don't care which one gets elected. Either way, there agenda is safe with the knowledge that they will have their interests protected. We need to see who is giving these politicians money! In my humble opinion.

Yes it is a Reagan quote. But, I think it fit well with my post.

"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first."
~Ronald Reagan

posted by LostSailor

“ . . a Reagan quote. I think it fits well.

"It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first."
~Ronald Reagan [Edited by Don W]

I find it odd that such a successful politician as Reagan would demean and denigrate his chosen profession. Perhaps he would do anything for a vote? All successful politicians work full time at it. Maybe he was describing himself?

[edit on 4/2/2007 by donwhite]

well i think the quote is true. In order to get what you want in both professions, you have to give a part of yourself. Thats my interpretation

Originally posted by donwhite
I find it odd that such a successful politician as Reagan would demean his chosen profession. Perhaps he would do anything for a vote? Maybe he was describing himself?

I am sure he was describing himself. I don't think you can become President this day and age without being a political whore. Maybe he was just trying to bring this "fact?" to the American people. Also, just because I quoted Reagan does not make me a fan of his Presidency. I just want to make sure that is laid out on the table.

As a trained political scientist, I can tell you that academics and elected leaders alike refer to politics as a profession of prostitution. Many of the same analogies really do apply. Politicians sell services and ideas in much the same way as their carnal counterparts.

Civic virtue, as once practiced to some extent in this country, meant that there were some things you just didn't do to make a deal. Political culture is so corrupt today that nothing is off limits. No service is too big, no fee is too big.

Being the small government proponent that I am, me says that enforcement of laws that would actually bring reform to the system would be better for the nation than Federally funded elections. Why? Because when you take away a person's ability to "vote" with their dollars, you rob them of a means of expression.

Think about that for a moment. If enough voters got honked off and sent Ron Paul (as one example) enough money, the mainstream media would pick up on that and ask "why?" You'd know why. It might also inspire you to act.

You vote with your dollars all the time. Whenever somebody makes the decision to buy something I wrote, they "vote" for me. Will you have fries with that, or not? Nike or Addidas? Do you want to rent sci-fi, western, or porn? Politicians should NOT be the only ones who can make money work for THEM.

Reagan was known for his endless supply of quips. Government by quip. Or by cue card. Welfare Cadillac. Etc. One of his quips may turn out to be at least partially true and have relevance in the real world. RR once said “cow flatus causes global warming.” We critics ranked that one equal to him saying trees caused acid rain. It turns out animal flatus - methane gas - is indeed a significant contributor to the overall carbon dioxide content in the atmosphere. I do not believe his quip writer knew that, however.

posted by LostSailor

posted by donwhite
Perhaps he would do anything for a vote?

I don't think you can become President this day without being a political whore. Maybe he was just trying to bring this "fact?" to the American people . . because I quoted Reagan does not make me a fan of his Presidency. I just wanted to make sure that is laid on the table. [Edited by Don W]

posted by Justin Oldham
1) Being a small government proponent, me says that enforcement of laws that would actually bring reform to the system would be better for the nation than Federally funded elections.

2) Why? Because when you take away a person's ability to "vote" with their dollars, you rob them of a means of expression. If enough voters got honked off and sent Ron Paul enough money, the mainstream media would pick up on that and ask "why?" You'd know why. It might also inspire you to act.

3) You vote with your dollars all the time. Whenever somebody makes the decision to buy something I wrote, they "vote" for me. Will you have fries with that, or not? Nike or Adidas? Do you want to rent sci-fi, western, or porn? Politicians should NOT be the only ones who can make money work for THEM. [Edited by Don W]

1) Quid pro quo. Jack Abramhoff. Tom Delay. Congressmen Nye. Butch Cunningham. Like an iceberg, we are seeing only the tip. The list is very long, Having honest elections is not much related to the size of the Federal government. The FEC may not have more than 500 full time staff. If we wanted to expand that to 20,000 on election day, we’d borrowed them from other agencies. If we had serious recounts, then we’d keep enough to do that job as long as it takes. Recounting is relatively quick and simple. It is the endless arguing whether to count or not to court a vote that drags on.

Speaking of Butch Cunningham, where are the prosecutions of the men who gave him the $3.5 million he admitted taking? What nefarious deeds did Butch do and for who, in exchange for the money, boats and houses? I thought it took TWO to complete a bribe? Is this what's behind the Bush43 and AG Gonzales firing of the 8 US attorneys? Especially the one in San Diego? Maybe they really just wanted her, and added 7 more to "cover that up?"

2) People are willing to die for the right to elect their leaders. I know of no one who would die for the right to choose his shoes. I do not equate membership in the Forbes 500 as necessarily making that person more equal than any of the 110 million people who go out to vote for their choice. There is no equivalency. Surely to God it does not have to be this way? Money is more consequential than human beings? We have been sold a bill of goods. Re-read the opening words to our Constitution. "We, the people of the United States, to form a more perfect union . . " The operative word there is WE. Should we re-write the Declamation of Independence? “We hold these truths to be self evident, the all MONEY is created equal . . “ Or the Gettysburg Address should have ended “ . . and that government of the money, by the money and for the money shall not perish from the earth.” I don’t buy that.

3) Electing presidents, congressmen and senators, governors and other public officials is not equal to going out into the free market to make an intelligent choice of which product among many to purchase. Elections are next to God in importance in our lives. Just ask any of those 3,400 dead soldiers in Iraq. Well, ask their loved ones. ”Which is more important to you, young man, money or money?”

[edit on 4/2/2007 by donwhite]

From Monday’s Washington Post dot com, a preliminary count of the money raised by the leading presidential hopefuls which the FEC will publicize fully on April 15.

Money raised by registered presidential candidates in the first quarter, 2007.

D, Clinton, NY, $26 m.*
R, Romney, MA, $21 m.
D, Obama, IL, not stated **
R, Giuliani, NY, $14 m.
D, Edwards, NC, $14 m.
R, McCain, AZ, $12.5 m.

*An undetermined amount of Clinton’s money is usable only in the General Election but it is not stated how much.
** Unofficial estimates are $20 m.

Commentary.
Everyone and particularly John McCain expressed disappointment and surprise both at how little he has raised and how much a less well known New Englander, Romney, has raised. Giuliani is able to claim a late start to explain his shortfall in funds.

This will likely spell the practical end of John McCain's run for the roses. He can join the Sunday talking heads on CNN or PBS as a commentator. It may also be interpreted that his Pro War and Pro Bush43 stance is not resonating with those people who make their living in Washington, the R&Fs who fund our electoral campaigns for us as we stand by and watch. Hey, if the R&Fs own the country why shouldn't they choose the president.? (Top ½% owns over 50% of America. You have to protect your investments).

I have constantly belittled Romney’s chances at both the GOP nomination and any hope for being elected as Romney44. It looks as if those who make it their business to know don’t think so! Put your money where your mouth is! Romney may look to them like the only “clean” candidate in the GOP field who has even a remote chance to win the November 4, 2008 referendum.

It is too early to evaluate Giuliani fund raising-wise. The next quarter report will give a more accurate picture on his prospects. He seems to have too much baggage to pull the solid support he sorely needs from the deep south and the southwest. I predict he might be a compromise candidate if the GOP convention deadlocks. As of this moment, I do not see the GOP nominee’s name on our short list.

The Leaders Strategy
Although you cannot be sure about anything in presidential politics, I’d bet Hillary has $10 -$20 m. “in her pocket” to be brought forth as needed. It is too early to overwhelm the 2nd and 3rd place people. You have to keep your supporters on a tight reign. Run a neck ahead, but don’t go off and leave the pack. If you are too far out front, everybody running on both sides begins to shoot at you. Stay ahead but just barely.

Conclusions
Obama must show strong gains by the end of the second quarter or he will fulfill my earlier assessment that he is a “flash in the pan.” Edwards has already peaked, IMO. He got all the public sympathy he can rightfully expect and his message appeals to too many on the left of the Dems. Not good. He may well be placing himself for a 2nd run on the vice-presidency, figuring he’ll slot himself for 2016 right behind Hillary.

Aside:
A Dem’s “dark horse?” I personally favor Colin Powell for Vice President. Once talked about as a possible GOP top of the ticket personality, Bush43 shot him dead in the February debacle at the United Nations. The “yellow cake” speech that ended in Scooter Libby’s conviction for lying. And we have never had an investigation about that, either.

The IAEA said the papers purporting to “prove” Saddam’s Iraq tried to purchase refined uranium ore - yellow cake - from Niger were forgeries. So who forged the papers? I think we can eliminate Iraq. If Niger had made the papers they would not have been forged but originals. So who’s capable of producing such papers? One guess and if you don’t say CIA that won’t count. On whose orders? We already know the trail. The papers came to the US via the Brits MI6, their equal to our CIA. MI5 being our FBI. I think the MI6 is now the SIS. Secret Intelligence Service.

So, here’s the yellow cake trail. Somebody high up in the White House calls the CIA's Mr Tenant. The CIA then makes the forgeries. The papers are delivered surreptitiously to the Brits MI6. The Brits forward the documents back to the CIA with a cover letter saying they “believe” the documents are genuine. The CIA gives the papers to the State Department. Powell says he has reliable information from a dependable source. And Colin Powell is snookered by Bush43. His reputation despoiled. A sacrificial lamb. Another casualty of the non-existent WMDs. So who called George Tenant? END of Aside.

[edit on 4/2/2007 by donwhite]

Romney's show of big money can be explained by the fact that he's a billionare, seeking donations from the people at his socio economic level.

I will be studying his fundrasing just like every other historna from now on. having said that, I will stand by my prediction that he is NOT his party's nominee. He lacks the staff and multi-State network that he'd need to make his money work for him.

On a purely psychological note, Romney plays to win. This whole "run for prewident" thing has been good for his ego, but he's not going to go through with it just to be his party's sacrifice to the fickle gods of politics.

If he does go ahead with his run, you'll see Hillary wrap herself in the flag while she adopts a much more religious tone to her speeches. Christian patriot takes on the Mormon elitist. As socially advanced as we might or might not be, she'd crush him like a bug by tapping in to America's latent fear of unconventional religions.

If Bill Gates of Warren Buffet "passed the hat" for whatever reason, I'm sure we'd all be suitably shocked at what they came up with for contributions. Having said that, let's be clear about one thing. I'm gambling that Romney's ego is just big enough to make him think twice, if he does get the green light from his party.

If I were Hillary's chief political strategist, I'd be telling her to say not one word at all about the Romney cash bonanza. Some sources, which are not relaible, suggest that she's got as much as fourty million dollars tucked away. In reality, I think she's got a special donor list that she's saving for later. It's an old school fund raising tactic.

posted by Justin Oldham

Romney's show of big money can be explained by the fact that he's a billionaire . . He lacks staff and multi-State network he'd need to make his money work for him. If he does go ahead with his run, you'll see Hillary wrap herself in the flag while she adopts a more religious tone to her speeches. Christian patriot takes on the Mormon elitist.

If Bill Gates of Warren Buffet "passed the hat" I'm sure we'd all be suitably shocked at what they came up with for contributions . . If I were Hillary's chief political strategist, I'd tell her to say not one word at all about the Romney cash bonanza. Some sources, which are not reliable, suggest that she's got as much as forty million dollars tucked away. In reality, I think she's got a special donor list that she's saving for later. It's an old school fund raising tactic. [Edited by Don W]

Q1. What do you think about my theory relative to Hillary staying out front of the field just a noticeable amount but not to swamp the other candidates?

Q2. Which brings me to this, IF Obama had close to $20 m. I believe he would have said so. I’m thinking he is in the mid-teens at best. He wanted to avoid 2 weeks of unfavorable comparisons. What say you?

[edit on 4/2/2007 by donwhite]

Originally posted by donwhite
Q1. What do you think about my theory relative to Hillary staying out front of the field just a noticeable amount but not to swamp the other candidates?

As you know, I fish in deep waters. I would bet money that Hillary is trying to stay just far enough ahead to be the leader without breaking a sweat. It's all in that secret donor list I mentioned.

Originally posted by donwhite
Q2. Which brings me to this, IF Obama had close to $20 m. I believe he would have said so. I’m thinking he is in the mid-teens at best. He wanted to avoid 2 weeks of unfavorable comparisons. What say you?

I'm willing to keep an open mind. If Obama did raise nearly as much as Hillary, he's got some motivation to check his math before he speaks. If he raked in less, he needs to do the math one more time just be sure he can "close the gap" as much as possible.

Sailor,
thanks for the post and the link. That is a good point that the new comer Obama is drawing almost as much money as Clinton. I really do hope he will emerge the front runner.

I'm glad to see the "new guy" making such a splash . I only wish the Republicalns had a new guy to make a similar wave in the conservative pool. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I know. Romney. Trouble is, Mitt isn't really in Presidential mode. He's got the rocks and the bucks, but he's not playing to win. He's in this for the fun.

Having said that, we should be glad that somebody is challenging Hillary. I'm grateful that she's being challenged by a relative newcomer. I may not agree with his politics, but I do know tha we need new blood and new ideas. Republicans at this time won't find new words and new ideas unles they are pushed.