Billionaire takes on Bush - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

samremy · 11-10-2003, 11:15 PM

I wish more of the world's wealthy were equally committed to noble causes such as 'Saint' Soros's crusade.

Billionaire Soros takes on Bush

Quote:

Billionaire Soros takes on Bush

By Laura Blumenfeld, The Washington Post

George Soros, one of the world's richest men, has given away nearly $5 billion to promote democracy in the former Soviet bloc, Africa and Asia. Now he has a new project: defeating President Bush.

"IT IS THE central focus of my life," Soros said, his blue eyes settled on an unseen target. The 2004 presidential race, he said in an interview, is "a matter of life and death."
Soros, who has financed efforts to promote open societies in more than 50 countries around the world, is bringing the fight home, he said. On Monday, he and a partner committed up to $5 million to MoveOn.org, a liberal activist group, bringing to $15.5 million the total of his personal contributions to oust Bush.

'A DANGER TO THE WORLD'

Overnight, Soros, 74, has become the major financial player of the left. He has elicited cries of foul play from the right. And with a tight nod, he pledged: "If necessary, I would give more money."

"America, under Bush, is a danger to the world," Soros said. Then he smiled: "And I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is."

Soros believes a "supremacist ideology" guides this White House. He hears echoes in its rhetoric of his childhood in occupied Hungary. "When I hear Bush say, 'You're either with us or against us,' it reminds me of the Germans." It conjures up memories, he said, of Nazi slogans on the walls, Der Feind Hort mit ("The enemy is listening"): "My experiences under Nazi and Soviet rule have sensitized me," he said in a soft Hungarian accent.

Soros's contributions are filling a gap in Democratic Party finances that opened after the restrictions in the 2002 McCain-Feingold law took effect. In the past, political parties paid a large share of television and get-out-the-vote costs with unregulated "soft money" contributions from corporations, unions and rich individuals. The parties are now barred from accepting such money. But non-party groups in both camps are stepping in, accepting soft money and taking over voter mobilization.

"It's incredibly ironic that George Soros is trying to create a more open society by using an unregulated, under-the-radar-screen, shadowy, soft-money group to do it," Republican National Committee spokeswoman Christine Iverson said. "George Soros has purchased the Democratic Party."

In past election cycles, Soros contributed relatively modest sums. In 2000, his aide said, he gave $122,000, mostly to Democratic causes and candidates. But recently, Soros has grown alarmed at the influence of neoconservatives, whom he calls "a bunch of extremists guided by a crude form of social Darwinism."

Neoconservatives, Soros said, are exploiting the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, to promote a preexisting agenda of preemptive war and world dominion. "Bush feels that on September 11th he was anointed by God," Soros said. "He's leading the U.S. and the world toward a vicious circle of escalating violence."

'THE SOROS DOCTRINE'

Soros said he had been waking at 3 a.m., his thoughts shaking him "like an alarm clock." Sitting in his robe, he wrote his ideas down, longhand, on a stack of pads. In January, PublicAffairs will publish them as a book, "The Bubble of American Supremacy" (an excerpt appears in December's Atlantic Monthly). In it, he argues for a collective approach to security, increased foreign aid and "preventive action."

"It would be too immodest for a private person to set himself up against the president," he said. "But it is, in fact" -- he chuckled -- "the Soros Doctorine."

His campaign began last summer with the help of Mort Halpern, a liberal think tank veteran. Soros invited Democratic strategists to his house in Southampton, Long Island, including Clinton chief of staff John D. Podesta, Jeremy Rosner, Robert Boorstin and Carl Pope.

They discussed the coming election. Standing on the back deck, the evening sun angling into their eyes, Soros took aside Steve Rosenthal, CEO of the liberal activist group America Coming Together (ACT), and Ellen Malcolm, its president. They were proposing to mobilize voters in 17 battleground states. Soros told them he would give ACT $10 million.

Asked about his moment in the sun, Rosenthal deadpanned: "We were disappointed. We thought a guy like George Soros could do more." Then he laughed. "No, kidding! It was thrilling."

Malcolm: "It was like getting his Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval."

"They were ready to kiss me," Soros quipped.

Before coffee the next morning, his friend Peter Lewis, chairman of the Progressive Corp., had pledged $10 million to ACT. Rob Glaser, founder and CEO of RealNetworks, promised $2 million. Rob McKay, president of the McKay Family Foundation, gave $1 million and benefactors Lewis and Dorothy Cullman committed $500,000.

Soros also promised up to $3 million to Podesta's new think tank, the Center for American Progress.

Soros will continue to recruit wealthy donors for his campaign. Having put a lot of money into the war of ideas around the world, he has learned that "money buys talent; you can advocate more effectively."

At his home in Westchester, N.Y., he raised $115,000 for Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean. He also supports Democratic presidential contenders Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark and Rep. Richard A. Gephardt (Mo.).

In an effort to limit Soros's influence, the RNC sent a letter to Dean Monday, asking him to request that ACT and similar organizations follow the McCain-Feingold restrictions limiting individual contributions to $2,000.

'WATCHDOGGING HIM CLOSELY'

The RNC is not the only group irked by Soros. Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, which promotes changes in campaign finance , has benefited from Soros's grants over the years. Soros has backed altering campaign finance, an aide said, donating close to $18 million over the past seven years.

"There's some irony, given the supporting role he played in helping to end the soft money system," Wertheimer said. "I'm sorry that Mr. Soros has decided to put so much money into a political effort to defeat a candidate. We will be watchdogging him closely."

An aide said Soros welcomes the scrutiny. Soros has become as rich as he has, the aide said, because he has a preternatural instinct for a good deal.

Asked whether he would trade his $7 billion fortune to unseat Bush, Soros opened his mouth. Then he closed it. The proposal hung in the air: Would he become poor to beat Bush?

He said: "If someone guaranteed it."

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

ObieX · 11-11-2003, 01:11 AM

First, Mr. Soros, if you are reading this, donating $1Million to me would make my lifetime. It wouldn't be buying my vote because Bush wasn't going to get it anyway.

For the original poster, I agree that the rich of the world should do much much much much much more for other people. Sitting on billions of dollars does nothing for anyone. Not only is it selfish, but extremely moronic (to put it nicely).

onetime2 · 11-11-2003, 04:17 AM

Ahh yes, "Saint" George who is perfectly happy to make billions in capitalistic societies and then come out against capitalism.

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/97...al/capital.htm

Mojo_PeiPei · 11-11-2003, 06:13 AM

Is this man an American citizen?

lurkette · 11-11-2003, 06:33 AM

The idealist in me is really uncomfortable about this. I believe that the wealthy have always bought and sold elections, so maybe someone flaunting it so blatantly like this is a good thing for our political system. Nonetheless, I don't think it's healthy for democracy to have ridiculously wealthy individuals influencing our electoral process this strongly.

The pragmatist in me says that the Republicans have strong and dubious financial backing themselves, and why not stoop to the level everyone expects politicians and their financial backers to stoop to and play by the rules of the game?

Argh...torn...get rid of Bush...but this way? Argh....must ponder...

Macheath · 11-11-2003, 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mojo_PeiPei
Is this man an American citizen?

Yes.

http://www.sorostrading.com/art10_20_97.html

I don't understand onetime2; he is not coming out against capitalism altogether but rather against the idea, held with almost religious fervour in some modern economics faculties, that the free market is an infallible and perfect entity. One can easily be a successful and credible capitalist who believes in the usefulness of markets as he does; and also believe what is written in that very interesting article.

As he writes, neoliberal economics is still a social science, not a natural science. Or to put it another way; it has more in common with Marxism than it does with Gravity.

XenuHubbard · 11-11-2003, 06:56 AM

Isn't he one of the billionaires that donate money to organizations that wants to legalize pot on a general basis?

onetime2 · 11-11-2003, 07:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Macheath

I don't understand onetime2; he is not coming out against capitalism altogether but rather against the idea, held with almost religious fervour in some modern economics faculties, that the free market is an infallible and perfect entity.

He now wants markets controlled in some way to insure the "greater good". How can this be accomplished? Who will decide the greater good? Will these goals be voted on? It's doubtful. In a free market the outcomes are "voted on" by spending and consumer choice. How will this be accomplished in his ideal world?

He points to our fallibility in understanding markets and a lack of perfect information and yet wants intervention in the markets by a government or group made up of fallible people. Is it better to put the greater good in the hands of a select few or keep the power in the hands of many?

Ustwo · 11-11-2003, 07:13 AM

So he has 'old rich guy' syndrome.

Now he gets to go to all the parties, everyone wants to talk to him, and he can feel good about doing something he hopes is important besides making money. He has the luxury of being rich enough that being a liberal doesn't hurt him, and no longer knows the pressure of having to try to keep a small business afloat while paying your employees and filing quarterly taxes, and coming up with the loan payment on a 5 year business loan.

I say good for him. The more the left gets to talk, the better off the right is

Superbelt · 11-11-2003, 07:16 AM

This guy is great, What he is doing is responding to a deficit the democrats have. And the leadership of the Republican party are being hypocrites who are trying to handicap the democrats as much as possible, as always.

The republicans have 'independent' groups like the Christian Coalition and others that do the exact same thing. But they don't want to mention that, cause that would mean they would have to practice what they preach and play fair.

Superbelt · 11-11-2003, 07:21 AM

And please show me where the RNC came out against this guy who does the exact same thing, only to the benefit of the Republican party, and with much more money given to date.

Richard Melon Scaife
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/...caife.profile/

Otherwise, whiney hypocrites.

onetime2 · 11-11-2003, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
This guy is great, What he is doing is responding to a deficit the democrats have. And the leadership of the Republican party are being hypocrites who are trying to handicap the democrats as much as possible, as always.

The republicans have 'independent' groups like the Christian Coalition and others that do the exact same thing. But they don't want to mention that, cause that would mean they would have to practice what they preach and play fair.

Play fair? Both sides do exactly the same thing. You mean the Dems didn't have insanely wealthy people supporting their causes before Soros? You mean there aren't left leaning groups along the lines of the Christian coalition?

The Dems do what they can to cut out the $ supporting the right and the Republicans do the same to the Dems.

Personally I hate the way campaigns are financed and I hate both sides equally in this regard. To single one out while ignoring the others' actions is exactly why campaign finance reform will never happen.

Hypocrites are found on both sides and both have been pretty whiney on many occassions.

Superbelt · 11-11-2003, 08:00 AM

Hey, I'm glad you agree. And I also agree that this kind of funding shouldn't be happening. I want to see changes. But until then the democrats can't just disarm themselves while the Scaifes and Christian Coalitions run around funding whatever they want. Until reforms are in place we need to keep fighting back. The democratic groups are still at a financial disadvantage compared to their counterparts and Soros' money will be a welcome addition.

archer2371 · 11-11-2003, 09:04 AM

OK, let's break down where both parties get their big money from, it's very simple, let's watch.
Republicans-Wall Street
Democrats-Hollywood

Contrary to popular belief the Dems do not get their money "from the people" neither party does, they get money from their constituents in those two groups that I mentioned. Sure, they might receive a few donations from party loyalists now and then, but the bulk of their 200+ million dollar campagin treasure chests comes from their constituents. Neither party is at a disadvantage for money, if one was, we'd see it disappear.

Peetster · 11-11-2003, 09:16 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
This guy is great, What he is doing is responding to a deficit the democrats have.

What deficit? Money? Democrats are as good as Republicans at raising cash as a whole. Although, as campaign finance kicks in, I agree it will be more difficult for Democrats.

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
The republicans have 'independent' groups like the Christian Coalition and others that do the exact same thing. But they don't want to mention that, cause that would mean they would have to practice what they preach and play fair.

Democrats have all the labor unions, the teachers' union and the Hollywood elite. We have different definitions of the term fair.

rogue49 · 11-11-2003, 09:22 AM

OK
Let's get this straight

Both Parties the Dems & GOP are:
Good at raising money
Good at spending money
Good at cronism
Good at pork

So let's say in the end, all you are doing is choosing which tastes better to your stomach.
KFC or McD's
Each is equally fattening and clogs your arteries.

Superbelt · 11-11-2003, 09:25 AM

And that's what I'm talking about, campaign finance reform. It stands to hurt the democrats more than the republicans. And yes, they were as good if not better than Republicans at raising cash.

Republicans are doing a better job now of raising money through satellite groups to use in elections, and people like Soros are what democrats need to make up the difference.

wwcd101 · 11-14-2003, 06:22 AM

I read the doctrine.

It comes down to these three things:

- The "free market" is not perfect.
- "Noise" or "inefficiencies" in the market are created by politics.
- As long as politics are going to be involved, "smart people" like George, need to give the rest of us guidance (i.e. tell us what to do).

As a person with a libertarian bent, I couldn't disagree with George more. I do think it is funny though that the Democrats are trying to figure out a way to embrace him.

Is he destined to be another Perot?

Thanks for listening.

onetime2 · 11-14-2003, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by wwcd101

I do think it is funny though that the Democrats are trying to figure out a way to embrace him.

Isn't there a saying something like a crazy guy with money is eccentric, a crazy with no money is just crazy. For all the bs that they (they meaning both parties and most politicians) want campaign finance reform, they will go to great lengths to court the $.

Conclamo Ludus · 11-14-2003, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by onetime2
Isn't there a saying something like a crazy guy with money is eccentric, a crazy with no money is just crazy. For all the bs that they (they meaning both parties and most politicians) want campaign finance reform, they will go to great lengths to court the $.

Herein lies the real bitch about campaign finance reform. No one will follow through when the money trees are still blooming. No politician in his right mind is going to walk away from money like this. Its a catch-22 in many ways. We need money to win an election to enact legislation to take the money out of elections.

onetime2 · 11-14-2003, 11:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Conclamo Ludus
Herein lies the real bitch about campaign finance reform. No one will follow through when the money trees are still blooming. No politician in his right mind is going to walk away from money like this. Its a catch-22 in many ways. We need money to win an election to enact legislation to take the money out of elections.

Personally I like the "I wouldn't do it but I HAVE to because THEY do it." approach. Really shows how they will twist anything to be the fault of the other party.

alkaloid · 12-10-2003, 08:39 AM

It's refreshing to see that a smart, successful individual is willing to help out in the battle against loud fanatics who believe in strange ideas. I really do not want to see United States degenerate into a state ruled by religious fanatics or libertarian/conservative drones who latch onto a simple ideas and will attempt to disrupt and disfigure the Nation and the world. I am also glad to know that I am not in alone in noticing disturbing resonance between Bush's populist appeal and the rise of Hitler in Nazi Germany.

Yes, I did say Bush = Hitler*20%, Republicans = Nazis*30%. I learned it in the Democratic Party's Sunday School for Atheist Homosexual Communists, which I attended since Kindergarten.

Yakk · 08-25-2004, 11:47 AM

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/08/22/Wo...ionaire_.shtml

Quote:

He's the billionaire primed to fight Bush

George Soros says he believes in democracy. Open society. Political process. And he sees no problem in funneling his fortune to push for the president's defeat.

By ADAM C. SMITH, Times Political Editor
Published August 22, 2004

[Getty Images]
George Soros, 74, is one of the world's richest, worth an estimted $7-billion.

NEW YORK - A cursory Internet search paints quite the picture of "billionaire America-hater" George Soros.

He marches "to the tune of Karl Marx" and is staging a "coup" against President Bush. He is the Democratic party's "Daddy Warbucks of drugs and death."

And by the way, "Satan lives in George Soros."

This Dr. No of the presidential campaign strolled into his office conference room last week, 32 floors above Central Park, wearing a tentative smile and, under his blazer, a checked shirt unbuttoned at the collar. Courtly and reserved, he wasted little time making clear why he granted the interview.

"Tell who I really am," he said, removing gold-rimmed glasses. "The distortion is so profound that just to confront it with the facts would be useful."

The facts, though, can seem contradictory.

Soros has spent millions to encourage campaign finance reform to curb the influence of big money. Now he is throwing his wealth through a gaping loophole in the very law he helped pass.

He already has given at least $12.6-million to Democratic groups working to beat Bush in Florida and other battleground states. Which explains the Internet venom from Bush allies painting him as a lefty extremist.

"By virtue of him being one of the largest donors in presidential campaign history, he has purchased the Democratic Party," said Yier Shi of the Republican National Committee.

At 74, Soros is one of the world's richest people, worth an estimated $7-billion, thanks to his knack for spotting global and economic trends before others. Considered one of the century's greatest financial wizards, he places massive bets on hunches about fluctuations in global markets.

In the same way he speculated on financial markets, Soros has bet on societies, spending billions to undercut communist regimes and promote democracy.

Now he's placing huge money on the campaign market - betting against Bush.

To understand his spite for the Bush administration, he says, you have to go back 60 years, to Nazi- and communist-occupied Hungary.

* * *

He was born George Schwartz in Budapest in 1930. The family changed its name to the less Jewish-sounding Soros when he was 6.

His father, Tivadar Soros, saw the Nazi threat before many of his peers. Even as "No Jews Allowed" signs went up and pro-Nazi Hungary passed laws limiting Jewish business ownership, many Hungarian Jews failed to see what loomed.

When the Germans arrived in Budapest, 14-year-old George Soros worked for the Jewish Council, delivering summonses for Jewish lawyers to register with the government, a first step toward deportation and eventual death. Ultimately some 70 percent of Hungarian Jews would be killed.

Soros briefly wore the required Star of David before his father obtained false, Christian identities for family members, whom he separately hid throughout the area.

"I lived under false names. Survived. Father helped people escape. It's a big experience," Soros said, his accent still thickly Hungarian.

The Russians liberated Hungary early in 1945, but the Soros family soon saw the implications of the Iron Curtain - another repressive government was taking control. Tivadar wanted his family to leave Hungary.

At 17, George moved to London and wound up at the prestigious London School of Economics. A professor there, Karl Popper, transfixed Soros with his "open society" philosophy.

"The concept of open society is based on the recognition that nobody is in possession of the ultimate truth," Soros explained. "Those who think they do have to impose their will on the people by force or by repression."

Soros moved to New York in 1956 and became a U.S. citizen in 1961. He more or less fell into the investment business, thanks to his knack for making money from shifts in currencies and international stock indexes.

Far from a buy-and-hold investor, Soros' specialty was quick, massive bets on global market fluctuations. For decades, wealthy people who invested with him earned average annual returns of more than 30 percent.

"As Borg is to tennis, Jack Nicklaus is to golf, and Fred Astaire is to tap dancing, so is George Soros to money management," Institutional Investor wrote of Soros in 1981, declaring him "the world's greatest money manager."

In 1992, Soros decided the value of the British pound was headed for a fall. He bet $10-billion on that calculation. In a single day, he pocketed more than $1-billion. He was dubbed "the man who broke the Bank of England."

The investor who assiduously avoided publicity working in the arcane arena of global finance now embraced the attention. Soros was ready, as he put it, to "come out of the closet."

* * *

Imagine waking up with unlimited money. Would you buy mansions? Private islands? Pump it into cancer research?

Soros decided to change the world.

Loaded beyond most people's imagination, Soros had found a new passion years earlier.

"It was a kind of midlife crisis," he said. "I was making a lot of money at great personal cost. Running a hedge fund the way I was doing it was very risky. Tremendous tension. And what was the point?

"That's when I decided what I want to do with my money, that I really care about this idea of an open society and I set up a foundation. That gave me a new lease on trying to make money because I had a good use for it."

With his passion for open societies, an understanding of geopolitics and more money to spend than most governments, Soros decided he single-handedly could accomplish dramatic good in repressed countries.

He helped Poland's Solidarity movement, dissidents in Eastern Europe and apartheid opponents in South Africa. He did it quietly, wary of hurting opportunities in countries still under authoritarian governments. By the time his British pound killing made him an international celebrity, he was ready to speak up.

"I felt at that time it would give me a platform to advocate my views," said Soros, who has since written eight books about his financial and social philosophies.

In the former Soviet Union, Soros spent $100-million on new textbooks, libraries, and teacher training to move the country beyond "Marxist-Leninist dogma." He rebuilt an entire municipal water filtration system and restored electrical power to hospitals when Sarajevo, Bosnia, was under siege in 1992.

As Morton Abramowitz, former president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, quipped in 1995, "He's the only man in the U.S. who has his own foreign policy - and can implement it."

In the mid 1990s, he turned his attention to controversial domestic issues in America. He funded organizations that questioned the effectiveness of antidrug policies and advocated liberalizing drug laws. He put money into groups that examined "the culture of dying" and promoted death with dignity laws.

There is irony in Soros' philanthropy, which costs him about $450-million a year. One of the most successful and ruthless speculators in what he calls the "amoral" system of global capitalism now acts like the social conscience of the world.

Longtime friends brush off the inevitable skepticism about Soros' motives.

"George has been consistent, I can say personally, for 20 years. His main concern has been for open society, fighting extremes, fighting for freedom and fighting for moderation," said Jeffrey Sachs, director of the Earth Institute at Columbia University.

"This is not self-promotion, in my opinion. This is not some tricky inside maneuver to get market advantage. This is George Soros trying to improve the world, and few people in our lifetime have the track record George Soros has accomplishing that."

Soros' philanthropic spending - nearly $5-billion to date - puts him in league with Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller. He doesn't care to be likened to Rockefeller, who he said pursued philanthropy for public relations. Carnegie might be more comparable, having built libraries and promoted reading for long-term good.

"His thinking is very similar to mine," Soros said. "I think his writing is very trite, and I hope that mine is not as trite as his.

"But it probably is."

* * *

Not long after Baghdad fell and President Bush flew onto an aircraft carrier bedecked with a "Mission Accomplished" banner, Soros summoned some of the brightest minds of the Democratic Party to his sprawling home in Southampton, New York.

Many deep-pocketed Democratic donors and fundraisers were despondent about their prospects for unseating a wartime President. Soros wanted to hear their plan to beat Bush.

Among those who attended were Ellen Malcolm, founder of Emily's List, a group that tries to elect female Democrats, and Steve Rosenthal, an organizing legend within the AFL-CIO.

They had teamed to create America Coming Together, which under new campaign finance restrictions could accept unlimited donations to mobilize Democratic voters so long as they work separately from the national party and Democratic nominee.

They told Soros they thought they could raise enough money to operate ACT in five to seven hotly contested states.

"George Soros listened to the presentations about the campaign and the environment and said very little throughout the entire day," Rosenthal recalled. "He didn't feel he needed to speak up and show how smart he was."

He finally put in his two cents. If ACT could raise matching money, he would commit $10-million to expand the effort. So would Peter Lewis, an insurance executive from Ohio.

Soros said he wanted to take the fight to 17 battleground states that two consultants he had independently hired said would decide the election.

"It just made sense," Soros said. "You've got 17 states which are the battleground states, and if you do battle in all 17 you have a better chance than if you only do it in five."

The shot in the arm from Soros and Lewis was, as intended, catalytic. An operation budgeted for about $25-million nationwide soon jumped to $125-million.

In his recently published book, The Bubble of American Supremacy, Soros explained his newfound partisanship. "I used to be rather balanced between the two main parties, seeing some good and some bad in each and leaning only slightly toward the Democrats," he wrote.

"Certainly I did not used to consider it a matter of life or death which party won the elections. I do now."

He likened America's place in the world to the kind of boom and bust cycle he capitalized on in the global markets. Much as the artificially inflated tech stock bubble finally burst, Soros contends Bush's "extremist ideology" that led to a misguided military attack on Iraq threatens America's position.

"To interpret it that our military power gives us the right to impose our will on the world is a false interpretation," he said last week. "It is not acceptable to the rest of the world. You can't use power that way. And it is directly against the principles and values that have made America great and that have made me want to come to America and live here."

His philosophy and personal experience with Nazism and communism feed his agitation over the Bush administration.

"It's a threat to open society - not only because of the threat to civil liberties but mainly because of the suppression of the political process, which is essential to democracy," he said.

"In other words, after Sept. 11, Bush declared that it's unpatriotic to criticize him. The Democrats and everybody else subscribed to that, accepted it. So for about 18 months, the critical process was suspended, and because of that suspension Bush could get us into the invasion of Iraq on false pretenses because the political process was suspended."

He's careful to draw this distinction: "I'm not as passionate about being a Democrat as I am about opposing Bush. Facetiously, I would be ready to become a moderate Republican after Bush is defeated. What we need most of all in this country is to recapture the Republican Party from the extreme right wing."

* * *

The Manhattan offices of Soros Fund Management are sleek and modern: metal stairs, slate floors, frosted glass doors and pale wood walls unadorned with artwork. Well aware that some of his prior statements have provided fodder for Republican attacks, Soros measured his words.

He doesn't hate Bush, he said, but passionately opposes his agenda, which "has been captured by a bunch of extremists."

What about Democrats decrying the outsourcing of jobs overseas? The globalist tempered his disagreement. "There are benefits to it," he said, turning the question to Bush's record on jobs.

"Globalization creates jobs and loses jobs. It is the role of an administration to foster new job creation and adjustment. And Bush, by cutting taxes, failed to stimulate job creation. Making the top 1 percent richer does not create jobs," he said, offering a bleak prognosis for the national and world economy in the coming year.

"The economy is keeling over, because everything has been done to pump it up for the second and third quarters. And it is inevitable that afterward, in '05, it would be less strong than before. And then the rise of the price of oil has put a monkey wrench in it."

The attacks and scathing depictions of Soros as a lefty extremist bother him. A lot.

"I have a set of ideas on open society, which is the opposite of an extremist position. I am passionately opposed to extremism of all kinds - of the belief that you're in direct contact with God or you have an ideology like the communists did that you know what's best for the world."

He says he fully understands that he's become a lightning rod, so much so that Republican fundraising pitches constantly invoke his name.

"They try to paint me as an eccentric billionaire," he said. "The effort is well justified because it dismisses the substance of my criticism. It discourages others opposed to Bush by showing what can be done to someone who sticks his neck out. And it helps a great deal in raising funds for the Republican Party. I think I've probably raised more money for the Republicans than I have for the Democrats."

He has committed about $15-million to independently operating Democratic groups, including ACT and MoveOn.org. He has not ruled out spending more, but does not envision a dramatic increase.

He said he wants people to know who he really is. What would that be?

"When I was given an honorary doctorate at Oxford, they asked me how would I like to be described. I said, "As a financial, philanthropic and philosophical speculator.' They never used it."

Adam C. Smith can be reached at 727 893-8241 or adam@sptimes.com Information from Soros: The Life and Times of a Messianic Billionaire by Michael Kaufman was used in this report.
SOROS' MILLIONS

George Soros spends about $450-million a year through a worldwide network of foundations, from working to halt AIDS in Africa to fighting oppression in Myanmar Burma. Some of his past work:

$115-million after the fall of the Soviet Union to support Russian science and reduce the temptation of scientists who had lost state support to sell their skills to dangerous interests.

$50-million to the Emma Lazarus Fund, to combat discrimination against legal immigrants in the United States.

$125-million since 1997 to the After School Corporation, for after-school programs.

$250-million in 2001 to fund and endow the Central European University, with its main campus in Budapest, Hungary.

$100-million to liberate education in the former Soviet Union from Marxist-Leninist dogma by buying new textbooks, training teachers and operating libraries.

$30-million to divide large public high schools in New York City into smaller, more manageable ones.

$110-million over the past decade to Step by Step, an early childhood development program in 29 countries.

$50-million in 1992 for aid to the besieged Bosnian city of Sarajevo, including construction of a municipal water filtration system and restoration of electric power to the city's hospitals.

$45-million from 1994 through 2003 for the Project on Death in America, which issued grants for the study of bereavement and end-of-life care, with a goal of "transforming the culture of death in the United States."

roachboy · 08-25-2004, 12:13 PM

i dont see how anyone could argue that it is obviously in the interests of capital to indulge the hallucination of "open markets"---you could come to oppose this absurd ideology on business grounds--a strong redistribution of wealth would assure greater social stability, would widen the number of possible consumers and would insure a better and more flexible system of social reproduction (training of future workers). the republican view of capitalism is but one ...a short sighted, self-defeating one at that...they have no monopoly on either articulating or defending the system...that you would think this is an effect of the right's longterm efforts to cast all opposition into a fictive "far left" position--which is ridiculous.
i dont see soros as being a particularly great guy for taking a stand against republican ideology--i think it an expression of his conception of self-interest. the only thing that surprises me is that more people in parallel positions do not do the same--publicly and loudly.

98MustGT · 08-25-2004, 12:23 PM

Scarry that a foreigner would have such influence, does he want whats best for the US or does he have another motive?

mml · 08-25-2004, 02:09 PM

I can't say I love having billionaires financing politics, but here is a man who has a vision and the means to try to see it fulfilled. There have been numerous (as others have pointed out) "money-men" on both sides of the aisle. They came out of the right in droves during the Clinton years. I had to listen to all my Democrat friends whine about it them, and I have to listen to my Republican friends whine about it now. Excluding McCain and Feingold, politicians are only for campaign reform when the other side is getting the better deal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 98MustGT

Scarry that a foreigner would have such influence, does he want whats best for the US or does he have another motive?

The guy is a US citizen. He was, like many great Americans, born in another country(Kissenger, Albright, Arnold etc..).

Lebell · 08-25-2004, 04:32 PM

I don't mind visionaries, nor do I mind individuals spending their million as they wish.

What I do mind is one man silencing others (through "campaign finance reform") while retaining his own voice (the "527" loop hole).

To me, this is the essence of hypocracy and why I do not like George Soros.

Kadath · 08-25-2004, 07:06 PM

Agreed, Lebell. I do not like Rupert Murdoch either.

Rekna · 08-25-2004, 08:20 PM

I don't mind 527's as long as there adds are truthfull. I think they should have get their comercials to pass a fact test before they can put them up.

onetime2 · 08-26-2004, 04:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

I don't mind 527's as long as there adds are truthfull. I think they should have get their comercials to pass a fact test before they can put them up.

Why? There are courses of action for libelous claims. If politicians don't have to be screened for the truth then why should 527s?

rukkyg · 08-26-2004, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onetime2

Why? There are courses of action for libelous claims. If politicians don't have to be screened for the truth then why should 527s?

Because often, when the opposite campaign accuses the group of lying, the people who believed the lies, will now hate the other campaign even more for being "politicians" or "tattle-tales".

Rekna · 08-26-2004, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onetime2

Why? There are courses of action for libelous claims. If politicians don't have to be screened for the truth then why should 527s?

Because these people are able to make baseless claims without any fear of repercussions to the campaign. The campaign gets plausable deniability and yet the lies are spread. Sure it is libel but it takes way to long for libel cases to be processed and the adds to be taken off the air. By the time the adds are yanked the election is over and they already have their president in office. Who could just parden them of any libel if he wanted to.

Rekna · 08-26-2004, 08:26 AM

Also politions should have to get their stuff fact checked also

onetime2 · 08-27-2004, 04:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rukkyg

Because often, when the opposite campaign accuses the group of lying, the people who believed the lies, will now hate the other campaign even more for being "politicians" or "tattle-tales".

Not really since it's pretty much a foregone conclusion in most peoples' eyes that politicians lie.

onetime2 · 08-27-2004, 04:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Because these people are able to make baseless claims without any fear of repercussions to the campaign. The campaign gets plausable deniability and yet the lies are spread. Sure it is libel but it takes way to long for libel cases to be processed and the adds to be taken off the air. By the time the adds are yanked the election is over and they already have their president in office. Who could just parden them of any libel if he wanted to.

Candidates make baseless claims all the time. Neither campaign has the time or money to take on the legal challenges it would require to prove libel or slander. All ads in a campaign are looked at as having a very short lifespan and by the time any are yanked they've likely already made an impact.

onetime2 · 08-27-2004, 04:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Also politions should have to get their stuff fact checked also

I agree and there are organizations out there that do it (unfortunately the press feeds more off the controversies generated by the lies than they do uncovering lies themselves so they're more willing participant than voice of reason) but they have no real power to enforce truthfullness.

My point was that unless there is a universal standard for truthfullness in political advertising, regulating only the 527s will get us nowhere.

Tulkinghorn · 08-27-2004, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onetime2

I agree and there are organizations out there that do it (unfortunately the press feeds more off the controversies generated by the lies than they do uncovering lies themselves so they're more willing participant than voice of reason) but they have no real power to enforce truthfullness.

My point was that unless there is a universal standard for truthfullness in political advertising, regulating only the 527s will get us nowhere.

Since we lack a universal standard for truthfulness, all we can do, and all we should have to do, is to expose the dishonesty of certain ads, and to expose the intellectual dishonesty of politicians who benefit from them and proceed to praise them with faint damnation.

Sorry, but we have to work within the constraints of democracy. If we as citizens allow ourselves to be mislead, then we deserve the lousy government we get.

11-11-2003, 01:11 AM	#2 (permalink)
ObieX Pickles Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)	First, Mr. Soros, if you are reading this, donating $1Million to me would make my lifetime. It wouldn't be buying my vote because Bush wasn't going to get it anyway. For the original poster, I agree that the rich of the world should do much much much much much more for other people. Sitting on billions of dollars does nothing for anyone. Not only is it selfish, but extremely moronic (to put it nicely). __________________ We Must Dissent.

11-11-2003, 04:17 AM	#3 (permalink)
onetime2 Junkie Location: NJ	Ahh yes, "Saint" George who is perfectly happy to make billions in capitalistic societies and then come out against capitalism. http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/97...al/capital.htm __________________ Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

11-11-2003, 06:13 AM	#4 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Is this man an American citizen? __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

11-11-2003, 06:33 AM	#5 (permalink)
lurkette My future is coming on Moderator Emeritus Location: east of the sun and west of the moon	The idealist in me is really uncomfortable about this. I believe that the wealthy have always bought and sold elections, so maybe someone flaunting it so blatantly like this is a good thing for our political system. Nonetheless, I don't think it's healthy for democracy to have ridiculously wealthy individuals influencing our electoral process this strongly. The pragmatist in me says that the Republicans have strong and dubious financial backing themselves, and why not stoop to the level everyone expects politicians and their financial backers to stoop to and play by the rules of the game? Argh...torn...get rid of Bush...but this way? Argh....must ponder... __________________ "If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." - Anatole France

11-11-2003, 06:56 AM	#7 (permalink)
XenuHubbard Cute and Cuddly Location: Teegeeack.	Isn't he one of the billionaires that donate money to organizations that wants to legalize pot on a general basis? __________________ The above was written by a true prophet. Trust me. "What doesn't kill you, makes you bitter and paranoid". - SB2000

11-11-2003, 07:13 AM	#9 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	So he has 'old rich guy' syndrome. Now he gets to go to all the parties, everyone wants to talk to him, and he can feel good about doing something he hopes is important besides making money. He has the luxury of being rich enough that being a liberal doesn't hurt him, and no longer knows the pressure of having to try to keep a small business afloat while paying your employees and filing quarterly taxes, and coming up with the loan payment on a 5 year business loan. I say good for him. The more the left gets to talk, the better off the right is __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

11-11-2003, 07:16 AM	#10 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	This guy is great, What he is doing is responding to a deficit the democrats have. And the leadership of the Republican party are being hypocrites who are trying to handicap the democrats as much as possible, as always. The republicans have 'independent' groups like the Christian Coalition and others that do the exact same thing. But they don't want to mention that, cause that would mean they would have to practice what they preach and play fair.

11-11-2003, 07:21 AM	#11 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	And please show me where the RNC came out against this guy who does the exact same thing, only to the benefit of the Republican party, and with much more money given to date. Richard Melon Scaife http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/...caife.profile/ Otherwise, whiney hypocrites.

11-11-2003, 08:00 AM	#13 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Hey, I'm glad you agree. And I also agree that this kind of funding shouldn't be happening. I want to see changes. But until then the democrats can't just disarm themselves while the Scaifes and Christian Coalitions run around funding whatever they want. Until reforms are in place we need to keep fighting back. The democratic groups are still at a financial disadvantage compared to their counterparts and Soros' money will be a welcome addition.

11-11-2003, 09:04 AM	#14 (permalink)
archer2371 Sarge of Blood Gulch Red Outpost Number One Location: On the front lines against our very enemy	OK, let's break down where both parties get their big money from, it's very simple, let's watch. Republicans-Wall Street Democrats-Hollywood Contrary to popular belief the Dems do not get their money "from the people" neither party does, they get money from their constituents in those two groups that I mentioned. Sure, they might receive a few donations from party loyalists now and then, but the bulk of their 200+ million dollar campagin treasure chests comes from their constituents. Neither party is at a disadvantage for money, if one was, we'd see it disappear. __________________ "This ain't no Ice Cream Social!" "Hey Grif, Chupathingy...how bout that? I like it...got a ring to it." "I have no earthly idea what it is I just saw, or what this place is, or where in the hell O'Malley is! My only choice is to blame Grif for coming up with such a flawed plan. Stupid, stupid Grif."

11-11-2003, 09:22 AM	#16 (permalink)
rogue49 Loser	OK Let's get this straight Both Parties the Dems & GOP are: Good at raising money Good at spending money Good at cronism Good at pork So let's say in the end, all you are doing is choosing which tastes better to your stomach. KFC or McD's Each is equally fattening and clogs your arteries.

11-11-2003, 09:25 AM	#17 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	And that's what I'm talking about, campaign finance reform. It stands to hurt the democrats more than the republicans. And yes, they were as good if not better than Republicans at raising cash. Republicans are doing a better job now of raising money through satellite groups to use in elections, and people like Soros are what democrats need to make up the difference.

11-14-2003, 06:22 AM	#18 (permalink)
wwcd101 Insane	I read the doctrine. It comes down to these three things: - The "free market" is not perfect. - "Noise" or "inefficiencies" in the market are created by politics. - As long as politics are going to be involved, "smart people" like George, need to give the rest of us guidance (i.e. tell us what to do). As a person with a libertarian bent, I couldn't disagree with George more. I do think it is funny though that the Democrats are trying to figure out a way to embrace him. Is he destined to be another Perot? Thanks for listening.

12-10-2003, 08:39 AM	#22 (permalink)
alkaloid Dead Inside Location: East Coast, USA	It's refreshing to see that a smart, successful individual is willing to help out in the battle against loud fanatics who believe in strange ideas. I really do not want to see United States degenerate into a state ruled by religious fanatics or libertarian/conservative drones who latch onto a simple ideas and will attempt to disrupt and disfigure the Nation and the world. I am also glad to know that I am not in alone in noticing disturbing resonance between Bush's populist appeal and the rise of Hitler in Nazi Germany. Yes, I did say Bush = Hitler20%, Republicans = Nazis30%. I learned it in the Democratic Party's Sunday School for Atheist Homosexual Communists, which I attended since Kindergarten.

08-25-2004, 12:13 PM	#24 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	i dont see how anyone could argue that it is obviously in the interests of capital to indulge the hallucination of "open markets"---you could come to oppose this absurd ideology on business grounds--a strong redistribution of wealth would assure greater social stability, would widen the number of possible consumers and would insure a better and more flexible system of social reproduction (training of future workers). the republican view of capitalism is but one ...a short sighted, self-defeating one at that...they have no monopoly on either articulating or defending the system...that you would think this is an effect of the right's longterm efforts to cast all opposition into a fictive "far left" position--which is ridiculous. i dont see soros as being a particularly great guy for taking a stand against republican ideology--i think it an expression of his conception of self-interest. the only thing that surprises me is that more people in parallel positions do not do the same--publicly and loudly. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

08-25-2004, 12:23 PM	#25 (permalink)
98MustGT Crazy Location: San Diego	Scarry that a foreigner would have such influence, does he want whats best for the US or does he have another motive?

08-25-2004, 04:32 PM	#27 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	I don't mind visionaries, nor do I mind individuals spending their million as they wish. What I do mind is one man silencing others (through "campaign finance reform") while retaining his own voice (the "527" loop hole). To me, this is the essence of hypocracy and why I do not like George Soros. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

08-25-2004, 07:06 PM	#28 (permalink)
Kadath Muffled Location: Camazotz	Agreed, Lebell. I do not like Rupert Murdoch either. __________________ it's quiet in here

08-25-2004, 08:20 PM	#29 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	I don't mind 527's as long as there adds are truthfull. I think they should have get their comercials to pass a fact test before they can put them up.

08-26-2004, 08:26 AM	#33 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Also politions should have to get their stuff fact checked also