Sorry, I just don’t think people who have earned billions in investment banking should be able to buy their way into the Democratic Party, whatever they now believe or support.
The idea that you devote yourself selfishly to materialism and then suddenly become a friend of working people doesn’t work for me. I know all too many people in the new administration are cronies of the investment banking scammers who destroyed the economy. In fact I think it should be an automatic disqualification for public office. (I’m not talking legal disqualification but choice and pre-disposition.)
One thing you can say about Obama is that he’s not a materialist. He didn’t go for the easy money on Wall Street or their satellite law firms. He’s an idealist. Much as conservatives mock it and much as it can be abused, being a “community organizer” is a noble pursuit. Didn’t your parents teach you that it was noble to seek to help the poor? Mine did; that’s why I’m a liberal. I don’t get why that’s somehow shameful, while the worship of the amoral values of the materialistic “free market” is somehow more admirable. Is that what your parents taught you? (I’m even told that “helping the poor” is encouraged by religion, you “values voters.”) I know you can find all sorts of ways to complicate it, but it seems pretty basic to me.
Anyway, that’s why I want Corzine to lose — even if it’s a short-term defeat for the Democratic Party. I don’t want people like him buying the Democratic Party. If he loses it becomes less attractive to his ilk. Simple as that.
As I’m sure you know, it was Balzac who made the observation that “behind every great fortune lies a great crime.” I’m not saying Corzine broke any laws. I’m saying that the market itself has proven itself the great crime and he’s at the very least an accessory after the fact.
Ron Rosenbaum, Writer 
I’m only speaking personally, but I snicker a bit at the community organizer because of its nobility. Yes helping a neighborhood, as other forms of charity is noble, but it, like anything, it can be abused. And that is why I snicker, since I see the idea of Obama entering that field as a cynical way to build his political experience and connections. Call me a cynic if you like, but I feel the President’s idealism is hip-joined with his own desire for political power and historical legacy.
As for material wealth… the President and his wife did do quite well, later in life. For example, from his books and her from her employment at that hospital. I suppose one could say he’s not a materialist since he could have made even more money and thus had a bigger mansion, but then one gets into where do you draw the class lines? How far, how fast must one’s wealth accrue before they can no longer be “friend of the working man”?
As you know, not all greed is material. Political power is intoxicating too, and in many situations is more influential than monetary. One might even say: “The idea that you devote yourself selfishly to [politics] and then suddenly become a friend of working people doesn’t work for me.” Which is why I am cynical to the idea of certain groups being “for the working man”.
As for worshiping the “free market” I agree. It’s absurd to worship a political economic model. In my view the free market produces greater liberty and prosperity than say command and control, but that does not warrant worship, support yes.
Tangentially, the deification of free-markets is is part of what makes Randians off-putting to me. It’s a bit too cargo-cultish.
As for your trope on wanting to help the poor being a reason for being a liberal… strange. One can disagree with the methods while still agreeing with the goals.
Comment by Jack — October 30, 2009 @ 11:10 am |
Do not miss this week’s Village Voice cover story on how Holder and Obama have given the whole Goldman crowd a pass and on the appointment (with an 88-0 Senate vote) of Lanny Breuer to be Justice Dept. “watchdog”, Obama is VERY, VERY CULPABLE and Ron is very naive
Comment by charlie finch — October 30, 2009 @ 11:26 am |
“I’m saying that the market itself has proven itself the great crime and he’s at the very least an accessory after the fact.”
The market itself? Do you mean Wall-street or more the very idea of free-markets?
And a great crime? Compared to what? Government? When talking about necessary evils do you really want to get into a contest between the butcher’s tally of governance versus markets? For a self declared pessimist you seem to have some quite rosy views on things.
And when one combines your pithy Balzac quote with your quite understandable desire to prevent “people like him buying the Democratic Party.” I’m sorry to say but his ilk are quite established in the Democratic party. The late Kennedy, Dashel, Reid, Murtha, Frank, Rangle, Pelosi, Geitner. Need I go further?
You’re right to bemoan and want to fight such interests in your Party, but I’m afraid they’re not on the outside pushing in.
Now with these people in positions of extreme influence, specifically in this instance, over the markets. Do you think they’ll make things better? Do they have the interests of the “working man”? Or will they use their power over the organs of state to further their own power, material and otherwise?
This is not to say the Republicans have clean hands, but the issue here is the Democrat party and if such a setback could hurt the “ilk”. One wonders if you’d extend this further? Do you wish to see a learning setback hit other corrupt members of the Democratic party?
Another thought on community organizers and those that mock, despite the potential for abuse. How do you square that with your disparagement of Tea-partiers and Townhallers? Are they not an example of communities that are organized to air their grievances?
Though I suppose a fraction of racists, Godwin-violators and shouters are sufficient to ruin it all. Meanwhile ACORN… need we go into its role in community organizing? Or are they as much of a community organizer as fascism is an extrema of the left?
For reference if you want an example of a far right country, one where there is minimal/no government and thus simply “markets” and religious rule runs rampant… well Somalia is a start.
Comment by Jack — October 30, 2009 @ 3:04 pm |
I agree with you — even tho I’m more or less a conservative. (There are plenty of idealisitic consevatives out there.)
Comment by Karl W. — October 30, 2009 @ 4:45 pm |
Is there any doubt anymore that the Democrats are the party of big business? They get more money from that crowd and the Obama administration is as infested with them as a dirty kitchen is with cockroaches. The Republican Party is now the party of small business, the source of most new jobs, and therefore the friend of the man and woman who want to actually work at something people want to buy, as opposed to the Detroit products from Government Motors.
Comment by Banjo — October 30, 2009 @ 7:05 pm |
[…] Read the entire story here. […]
Pingback by Pajamas Media » Why This Liberal Democrat Wants Corzine to Lose in New Jersey — October 31, 2009 @ 12:36 am |
Wow so much to choose from where to begin.
Helping the poor is noble, but helping them to do what is the better question to ask here. Should we not help them to better their skills and find good employment so that they become productive members of the society? How does finding them better government handouts make the lot truly better. If you want to help the poor then put an end to constant government edicts to the business sector and the incredibly high taxes imposed upon them. They could then expand and hire more of these “poor” people to work and rise out of poverty. I am not saying throw them to the wolves of sweatshops, but rather a booming economy that lifts all boats.
I know it sounds really familiar doesn’t it. It is funny how the Democrats loved the booming economy when they were riding the wave in the mid 90’s, but as soon as the government start monkeying with a good thing then came the crash and burn part. Government does not create anything, it only takes from the taxpayer. If we starve the beast then more money is in the taxpayers pocket to do as they please, such as expand their business or give to charity as they see fit. When unemployment is low there is a corresponding low level of government activity, the opposite is true as well increase in government activity results in an increase in unemployment. So tell me that the current economic situation has not been worsened by the constant state of government change because every time the government threatens or taxes the employers shelter down and even more jobs are cut. Don’t worry the government will save you by extending you unemployment benefits, which results in further drain on the economy because that money comes in via higher and higher taxes.
As for the Republican party being for anything these days is a complete and utter joke. They have two major factions neither of which reflect the feeling in America. You have the RINOs that believe in big government giveaways (Democrat-Lite) and the far right of social conservatism. The country is fiscal conservative first and social issues second if at all. Reagan got it and he opened his arms to all fiscal conservatives and sidelined the social stuff to personal belief. He believed in starving the government beast to stop the drain on the economy and the results were seen for about 20 years of incredible job growth and low unemployment. Greed and government interference ended all that and the left seized the day by saying that greed and lack of government where to blame. This is only partially true, but we were sold a whole lot of bad government to make up for bad government.
It would have only taken a few minor tweaks to stop the madness, but instead we let the government step in and waste trillions of hard earned tax dollars. There were many other solutions to the “crisis” but no one was willing to take the time to let the market sort it out. The MSM beating the drum for even more government control and their Champion on the way to the White House if the economy was in the crapper. So here we sit. The market is recovering because Congress hasn’t been able to do anything because the American people are rising up to let their fiscal conservative roots show. This has caused Congressional gridlock, which is a great thing and the markets are trying to make a comeback.
We have a choice to make on Tuesday and it will be one that will shape our future, we can back big government and big government spending or we can send a message by supporting Rubio and Hoffman and say we support fiscal conservatism. Lets join together and support what makes America great and leave big government behind.
Comment by Sandy Salt — October 31, 2009 @ 2:26 am |
The LEFT is TOXIC & DEADLY for all life!
But Ron Rosenbaum wants to say it LOUD and PROUD, I’m a Lib Demmie and darn it I JUST WANT TO DO GOOD! Jeez naive is just the least description of this fool! How about the DO GOODER’s massive history of enormously bad unintended consequences: War on Poverty, Homes for every pot, Globull Warming, CUBA, PolPot…not to mention that the DEMOCIDE, mass murdering (100MM+) of Citizens, in the 20th Century was exclusively done by Communist autocrats…these DO GOODERS like this one have a lot to be ashamed about, we must keep reminding them of this!
Comment by WestWright — October 31, 2009 @ 2:54 am |
Ron, I hate to break this to you. But the Democrat Party is no friend of working people. They stand only for themselves and gaining power to advance a far leftist liberal ideology by using race and class warfare as well as buying the votes of the non-working class with welfare payments.
With such “friends” one need not a despot.
Such is the corrupt moral foundation of the Democrat/liberal party and the way it functions that worms like corzine and soros are a natural fit within it.
Comment by Fantom — October 31, 2009 @ 4:45 am |
“One thing you can say about Obama is that he’s not a materialist. He didn’t go for the easy money on Wall Street or their satellite law firms.”
LOL, Not a materialist? Have you seen his bank account? Notice all those $500.00 sneakers his wife buys to haul her massive behind around in? The kobe beef?
I will agree with you Maoboma is an Idealist, but then so was Lenin.
As for why obama did not go corporate. He really is not that bright and is lazy. It is far easier to make your million pimping in Chicago Democrat machine politics and all the corrupt graft that goes along with it.
Comment by Fantom — October 31, 2009 @ 4:51 am |
Mr. Rosenbaum:
“Anyway, that’s why I want Corzine to lose — even if it’s a short-term defeat for the Democratic Party. I don’t want people like him buying the Democratic Party. If he loses it becomes less attractive to his ilk. Simple as that.”
It’s a little late for that, don’t you think?
Ned Lamont in Connecticut spent how much of his own money at nutroots’ urging to steal the nomination from Joe Lieberman?
John Edwards made a tidy sum from litigating before buying himself a Senate seat.
John Heinz of Pennsylvania was an heir, and his fortune, along with his widow, now rides in service to John Kerry.
The Kennedy family fortune made from smuggling an illegal substance across the border in violation of Federal law.
George Soros.
Need I go on? Politics, no matter which party, has always been a rich man’s hobby and always will be.
I have to wonder what fairy-tale world it is that you think you came up in?
Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a Knickerbocker scion…and that is “Old Money”.
Time to grow up, Mr. Rosenbaum.
“One thing you can say about Obama is that he’s not a materialist. He didn’t go for the easy money on Wall Street or their satellite law firms. He’s an idealist.”
Time to wake up, too.
Perhaps the Alleged Hawaiian isn’t exactly consumed by materialism, (I’ve known a few politicos, and for some it’s the power that is their narcotic), but his wife and his business associates certainly are.
Comment by Bilgeman — October 31, 2009 @ 5:08 am |
“One thing you can say about Obama is that he’s not a materialist.” Nor does he want anyone else to become one, it seems.
“He didn’t go for the easy money on Wall Street or their satellite law firms.” No, first he went to Soros-funded groups. Second he went to Arab states for illegal foreign debit-card campaign financing.
“He’s an idealist.” So was Karl Marx, with he and Obama formed from the same mold.
Comment by Saltherring — October 31, 2009 @ 8:21 am |
Rosenbaum, you are “liberal” the same way that North Korea is a “Democratic People’s Republic”, and in the same way that the current state of American capitalism is a “free market”.
Comment by Frank — October 31, 2009 @ 8:24 am |
There are two points where I think I engage Mr. Rosenbaum, either disagree with him or at least have a somewhat different point of view.
1. Being a community organizer may be a noble goal. The difficulty is similar, though, to putting a restaurant critic in charge of the kitchen. The critic knows how to write, and he knows what tastes good, perhaps how things should taste…but that doesn’t make him a master chef. We’ve now got a president who spent most of his career pestering public officials, with little understanding of how difficult their jobs were. Not exactly a recipe for success.
2. As to wealthy investment people buying their way into immortality, or at least the Democratic pantheon: You’re just upset about this NOW? John Edwards was an ambulance chaser, made a bundle of money linking some chronic illness to a hospital chain and winning a class action law suit, then bought a Senate seat with the proceeds. Jay Rockefeller’s family was fantastically wealthy (yes he’s a Rockefeller) and he spent tons of money buying himself a Senate seat in West Virginia (looks like a real coal miner’s son, doesn’t he?). None of the Kennedys earned much of their vast wealth, it came from Daddy or their celebrity. Funny, I thought this *was* the Democratic way: get wealthy either inheriting the money or using unscrupulous practices, then redeem yourself by spending a portion of your wealth to gain political power, so you can manage other people’s lives for their (supposed) benefit. Did I miss something?
Comment by DavidN — October 31, 2009 @ 9:10 am |
Mr.Rosenbaum
You have asked a couple of good questions and I will try to answer in good faith.
Much as conservatives mock it and much as it can be abused, being a “community organizer” is a noble pursuit.
I think that you are dead wrong here. Being a community organizer in Chicago is how you serve your apprenticeship for the profession of politician if you do not have family connections. It provides experience and training in political campaigns but does absolutely nothing to prepare one for the job of running things as an executive. While the free market is not in and of itself noble, it does have a pretty tough feedback system. Making bad decisions (or refusing to make decisions) results in losing money, possibly going out of business and losing the ability to keep making decisions.
I can buy the argument that making money in the fantasyland financial markets of the 1990s is not the same thing as successfully operating a company that makes widgets or provides services to customers. That is why, despite the fact that I disagree with their stated politics, I would be more prone to vote for people of proved competence like Steve Jobs or Bill Gates than lifelong professional politicians like Barak Obama or masters of financial legerdemain like Jon Corzine.
Didn’t your parents teach you that it was noble to seek to help the poor? Mine did; that’s why I’m a liberal.
Yes, mine too. That is why I contribute my own money to organizations that deliver a much higher percentage of that money to helping the poor than if it is filtered through the government. I also don’t try to force you to give your money to those organizations. That is why I am a conservative.
Comment by Mark in Texas — October 31, 2009 @ 9:58 am |
Leaving charity up to the Government is not noble. Government takes money and wastes it. Government takes dollars and reduces them to pennies or even negatives by the time the money filters through the red-tape mess that is the Gov way.
While I believe some tax money should go to help the people who have been abandoned and cannot fend for themselves (children/handicapped/etc.), I don’t believe an able-bodied-minded person should be allowed to just live fat and free on the the Gov. teat and have children that learn by example and do the same. Generational welfare recipients is not ‘helping’ your fellow man, it only hurts them and keeps them impoverished for life without hope, dreams or the idea of a real future.
Comment by Delia — October 31, 2009 @ 11:10 am |
I spent 25 years working for the Democrats, including 4 Presidential campaigns. The Democrats would take your wallet, the Republicans your bank account. Now, with Obama’s pussyfooting with Wall Street miscreants who should be jailed, and the Republicans chintzing us on health insurance, the reverse is true.
Comment by charlie finch — October 31, 2009 @ 11:41 am |
Mr. Rosenbaum:
“Didn’t your parents teach you that it was noble to seek to help the poor? Mine did; that’s why I’m a liberal.”
If that indeed be so, you should be anything BUT a modern-day Liberal.
“I don’t get why that’s somehow shameful, while the worship of the amoral values of the materialistic “free market” is somehow more admirable. Is that what your parents taught you?”
The thing about materialism is that you get to have stuff, (like money), that is YOURS.
Once again, from the Sayings of Chairman Bilgeman:
-If I give a bum $20, he gets $20.
-If I give a guy $20 to give to a bum, I can expect that guy to keep half, so now the bum gets only $10.
-Guys who can make people give them $20 have a valuable skill, and are best employed putting the touch on donors rather than spending their time distributing bum welfare.
-So the guy I gave $20 for the bum is going to find himself a bum collector and give that guy $10 to give to the bum.
-It’s reasonable to expect the bum collector to keep half of what gets slipped into his kitty, so the bum now only gets $5.00.
That is modern Liberalism.
You pay twenty, the bum gets a fiver, and you both wonder where the fifteen in the middle went to.
“(I’m even told that “helping the poor” is encouraged by religion, you “values voters.”) I know you can find all sorts of ways to complicate it, but it seems pretty basic to me.”
Well, here’s basic for ya.
You don’t “help” the poor by taxing them. Even if your aim is to use the taxes to help them.
All you’re helping are the middlemen.
Like Tony Rezko…
Comment by Bilgeman — October 31, 2009 @ 12:21 pm |
I respect Ron Rosenbaum’s intellect and his honesty. Regrettably, he has not yet recovered from his childhood liberalism. His attitudes are symptomatic of what liberalism has become: a form of moral self-flattery. Mr. Rosenbaum feels morally superior to conservatives who question the value to the poor of liberal, government programs. Rosenbaum should worry more about the role of that great philanthropic donor to the Democratic party, (but not to Jewish causes) George Soros. Of course he and Soros both share a sense of moral superiority to benighted, materialistic Republicans. Soros doesn’t think of himself as materialistic. Instead he considers himself a philosopher, not a speculator who almost destroyed the Western financial system. The Democratic party is full of such “idealists” like John Edwards, Elliot Spitzer, Jon Corzine. Look in the mirror Ron before you throw bricks at others.
Comment by Stephen Rittenberg — October 31, 2009 @ 1:16 pm |
I, too, believe in helping the poor… by telling them “No!” Someone has to be the adult… and get the poor to become adults, too. Hunger is a wonderful motivator. That’s why I’m a Conservative.
Comment by Marc Malone — October 31, 2009 @ 1:47 pm |
Ron R. is right on his basic argument. The Democratic party still pretends to be the party of the working guy. Running phonies like Corzine exposes the lie. Most Democrats like “social justice” but won’t put up with the Marxist agenda of the leadership too much longer. The times they are a changin’. Ron may be one of the canaries in the coal mine looking for some fresh air.
Comment by Gary Ogletree — November 1, 2009 @ 12:34 pm |
Corzine, as a personality, is far more sympathetic than most greeders and even than Obama, whose sexual identity and real personality are cloaked under more artifice than the Scarlet Pimpernel (cf. the constant current of hostility expressed by his more real, better qualifed and more attractive wife!). Corzine, a dweeb from Minnesota, a poor kid, was forced out at Goldman by the sharpies like Hank Paulson, wore his affair with the voluptuous Ms. Katz of Jersey labor union notoriety on his desperate, tweedy sleeve, survived a car crash in which he was leaning over the front seat blabbing away about politics. In New Jersey, there has never been “a good governor”, due to the culture of cash handouts, and here’s betting that Governor Christie will be in the hoosegow before his term is out. Nevertheless, I would support Christie on the fat, conservative supporters of Springsteen platform.
Comment by charlie finch — November 2, 2009 @ 8:53 am |
Earth to Ron, Earth to Ron: Corzine loses, Fort Hood Massacre, Iranian Uprisings, Obamaprompter insensitivity, bugeyed Pelosi on Meds?, Beck smooches Olbermann at World Series…new post, please!
Comment by charlie finch — November 6, 2009 @ 5:48 pm |
Ron
Quit your moral preening, and read Thomas Sowell’s “The Vision of the Anointed.”
Comment by Carl Sesar — November 7, 2009 @ 8:31 am |
Corzine is still losing, in fact, has gone to the Caribbean to lick his wounds. Meanwhile, Ron, working hard on his book, remains AWOL…over to Belmont Club
Comment by charlie finch — November 9, 2009 @ 6:07 am |
4 years have passed since Ron last posted and Corzine is running to win back his seat from jailed Governor Chris Christie. Help, Ron, save the day or Corzine will win!!
Comment by charlie finch — November 10, 2009 @ 6:18 am |
For the treasonous announcement of Attorney General Holder this morning, President Obama must be impeached.
Comment by charlie finch — November 13, 2009 @ 2:09 pm |
Terrorists on trial in NYC will go scot free. There’ll be waves of Mumbai-style attacks on military bases, malls, schools, and places of worship by sleeper cells across the country, while Obama, as he did on this Veterans Day 2009 at Arlington National Cemetery, cups his presidential balls saluting the flag at memorial services for the dead.
Comment by Carl Sesar — November 16, 2009 @ 8:46 am |
Since Ron is hard at work on his excellent exegesis of nuclear strategy, I am informally taking over his blog with a Pale Fire Tea Party (the Pale Fire: one oz brandy, dash sweet vermouth, one maraschino cherry). OK here goes: Impeach Obama (with Peter King doing the honors in the House)? Up or Down?
Comment by charlie finch — November 16, 2009 @ 1:08 pm |
Andrew McCarthy’s brilliant analysis in National Review Online argues that Obama and Holder want to hold this trial in New York precisely because they want to embarrass the Bush Administration through trial discovery abput the KSM waterboarding, etc. I would take it a step further: the Democratic Party establishment wants to rewrite history, eliminating the gross negligence of Al Qaeda by the Clinton Administration. The way to do this is to justify the criminal law rationale used by the Clinton Administration against Isamofascism by holding this trial. Thus, a contiuing act of war is turned into a street crime to justify the Democratic worldview. This trial puts New York back in the crosshairs, insults those murdered by Al Qaeda, emboldens the terrorists by turning KSM into a jihadist rock star. Obama and Holder are guilty of nothing less than treason, in my view.
Comment by charlie finch — November 16, 2009 @ 5:33 pm |
New Obama slogan: “Peace in our time” plus…hooray for Governor Paterson, a true patriot
Comment by charlie finch — November 16, 2009 @ 5:42 pm |