Dem fund raisers…a WTF moment?
That White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel met Sunday night at the apartment of Jane Hartley and Ralph Schlosstein with Dem fund-raisers such as Orin Kramer, Stan Shuman, Roger Altman, Ann Hess, Robert Zimmerman, Pete Peterson and Joan Ganz Cooney.
Good grief. Pete Peterson a Dem fundraiser? Who is getting his money?
You see, who needs a conspiracy theory or lizard people.
Money will suffice.
especilly in the hands of lizard people.
And so you see my friends that there is not a two party system in America. There is only several renditions of the Reactionary Rich People’s Party. All have the same unstated goal of consistently and persistently shifting wealth. Unfortunately for the average American the shift is upwards. Remember in Orwell’s 1984 everything said means what the opposite is. Norquist would have us believe that income taxes shift wealth to the masses via government funded social welfare programs. Peterson would have us believe that it is Social Security that is at the root of our economic system’s malaise. The squabbling over the details of the budget is only meant as a distraction from the reality of the economic shift, which is constant. What was it that the old Englishman once said about the world being a stage? He meant to suggest that life is a black comedy.
Who’s getting his money? I think the model of political influence represented in that question relies too much on partisanship, not enough on cynical political interests.
We are shown partisanship all the time, because it sells advertising, it keeps the baggers riled up – it serves a purpose. Away from the camera, the same people who buy influence from Republicans buy influence from Democrats. The Petersons of the world love it when we spend a whole generation struggling over abortion and guns and school prayer, while the foot soldiers in that struggle miss the fact that they have lost ground in the class war during that entire generation.
Consider – Peterson wants to end Social Security. We know from the efforts of Bruce Webb and others that the arguments against Social Security as it now exists are mostly badly flawed, so anybody with access to good analysis should know better than to believe the standard arguments against Social Security. We also know that Obama’s deficit committee has modifications to Social Security high on its list of things to do, far higher than increasing taxes – which were able to be cut by borrowing from Social Security. Military spending is not even up for discussion. OK, so Peterson wants Social Security gone, Peterson is identified as a “Dem fund-raiser” and Democrat numbero uno has enlisted a committee to cut Social Security benefits. Where, exactly, is the confusion in this arrangement?
K,
Because it doesn’t fit the narrative of meanie Conservatives trying to eat your childern and burn you at the stake.
I think we get to have elections for marionettes, then they go to Washington and have the strings hooked up.
The only difference now is they give us diversification in our selection, more colors and genders to pick from.
It was so much easier to choose when the choice was between bald white guys or grey-headed white guys. When it comes to questions of color, I most particularly don’t want to see hair that still has color on Capitol Hill.
J,
It most certainly does. I’d use a derogatory figure of speech to describe your foolish and partisan comment, but I know it’s wasted on an ideologue who can’t see beyond his own nose. You are exactly the representation of the point that Kharris seeks to make. How do you distinguish between a Conservative and a Democrat, or a Republican for that matter? They all have different bank accounts, but those accounts are all fed by the same streams.
Do you recall the red neck fool who often called into the old Howard Stern radio show and began his shpeel, “Wake up white people!” He’d have done his cohorts a lot of good if he had instead bleated, “Wake up working class fools, the bogeyman is disguised as a bi-partisan commission.”
Jimi: “Because it doesn’t fit the narrative of meanie Conservatives trying to eat your childern and burn you at the stake.”
It fits the narrative of their actually doing so.
I think the joke is : he doesn’t have a Hebraic last name.
Do I win a prize?
It was so much easier to choose when the choice was between bald white guys or grey-headed white guys.
Name the last U.S. president that was elected running with bald or solidly grey hair. You have to go back a ways. America likes presidents with good hair and has not elected totally grey or bald president in over 100 years.
This is a repetition of Jack’s Great Man Theory of Government as it applies to the USofA. All sovereign states are allocated a limited number of great persons to lead their people and government over a given span of time, say three centuries. That’s a reasonable average for the existence of a sovereign state without major political upheaval. The USofA used up nearly its entire allotment of such great leaders during the first three decades of its current iteration. There have been several other great leaders since the turn of the 18th to 19th centuries and now are entire allotment is done, gone. We’re left with the dregs of political leadership and have been for at least a half century. Absent a political upheaval we’re doomed to the mediocrity of a wealth driven aristocracy and the sycophants that such a system tends to generate.
I keep repeating a haunting refrain in my head, but can’t seem to place the tune, “Change you can believe in.” Does anyone know the melody? Just hum a few bars. Maybe we can sing it to the tune of “We Won’t Be Fooled Again.”
Not to be irratating, but this has been going on for as long as I can remember. Every sends money to BOTH sides so they can have influence reguardless of who wins. And both sides take money from (almost) anyone who’s check clears. The only reason either side gives money back is when it comes to light they cashed a check from some Klansman or terrorist. But if no one points it out, the money gets kept. And that doesn’t even count the checks from Mickey Mouse et al.
I easily remember how Carter and Reagen both got huge checks from defense contractors for the 1980 election. Made some ’60 Minutes’ type show. I think the program started with the premise that this was some form of scandel until they found out almost everyone gave money to both sides (in different proportions). Jim Wright D-Congressmen and Speaker always got big bucks from General Dynamics…maker of the F-16s built in his district. GD also wrote big checks to Reagan…
This really is a ‘nothing new here, move on’ type event. And I don’t see this changing anytime soon….
Islam will change
Jack,
The commission was put together by the Obama Administration. Pete G. Peterson is pretty open about what his goals are, which has nothing to do with Republicans or Conservatives.
The typical narrative here, and the main stream media is that Republicans are the same as Conservatives, and they want to drink your blood.
They are not doing anything of the sort, it is your Messiah, Obama that is pursuing cutting Social Security. Blame them. Don’t take your debunked default position of blaming everything bad in the world on Conservatives.
This is what you guys dreamed of, You own it, look in the mirror and point.
“This really is a ‘nothing new here, move on’ type event.”
Who needs democracy when we have rich oligarchs?
Robert Zimmerman. Isn’t that Bob Dylan’s actual name?
jimi
the only problem with your comments here is that you utterly miss the point of what people are saying.
buff
nothing new. but definitely not move on.
Jimi,
You try my patience. I cannot believe that you are the fool that your own comments suggest that you are. You speak of Conservatives as being separate and distinct from Republicans. And Lutherans are different from Presbyterians, but they are all Christians. Do you understand that analogy? At a time past there was a small, but distinct Conservative Party. That party did on rare occasion run its own candidates in local elections. In the vast majority of elections the same candidate appeared on both the Conservative and the Republican lines. I return your attention now to my original point. Both the Conservatives and the Republicans, together with too many of the Democratic Party, all serve the same masters. They have a single agenda though they describe the routes to those similar goals as being different. That’s the only real distinction. They’re on differing roads to the same place.
Buff,
Yes, you are right. Politics is the art of covering all the bases when you have that much influence to spread around. The point of the post is, however, that the acceptance of financial support from sources that seemingly represent a competing ideology tells us that the game is fixed from the get go. The political parties and the influential parties behind those organizations all share the same agenda which has little to do with conservative or liberal ideologies. The agenda is wealth preservation and enhancement, but with a very narrow focus.
Jack and coberly,
Ok to continue to be irritating. You guys continually miss jimi point. This is an Obama led commission. Endorsed by the Democrats and any changes coming out of this will be becuase of Democrats.
Obama and the Dems own it all. This is your team, you voted them into office. This is what you voted for. So deal with it or help vote the bums out in November so we can get back to divided government.
But if McCaine were President we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.
Islam will change
Buff
I am afraid it is you and jimi who are missing our point.
the point here is that the demlicans and republicrats ultimately are owned by the big money. For you and Jimi to say, no, the big mess is really “our side the democrats’ fault” is to fail to realize that first the people commenting here have explicitly said “the deomcrats” are not on our side and “it” is their fault because they are taking money from the same people your side is taking money from.
now, if what you are trying to say is “oh no the Republicans are Pure and if only we had elected a Republican we wouldn’t be in this mess” you need to make that argument more clearly, because otherwise we think you just don’t get it.
we would love to vote the bums out, but if we just vote the other bums in we will be having this discussion, only the names will have been changed to protect the innocent.
Buff
you really should read “The Forty Years War” by Colodny and Shachtman. It would tell you something about the origins of the Bush foreign policy team (the neocons) which might surprise you. hint: they were mostly former democrats who really really didn’t like Nixon’s policy of detente with the USSR.
even you might begin to suspect that “party” is just one of the tools to power, not a reliable guide to policy. where i part company with the authors is that they think Obama represents “the fall” of the neocons. What I see is a continuation of the same basic policiy with a modificatioin of means and rhetoric. Kind of like when a corporation changes CEO. You get a change in style and salesmanship, but the goal is still to make money for the shareholders… or maybe just for the Directors.
Buff,
I don’t know how to make this point any more clearly than I and Coberly have already tried to do. You’re missing that point, and as for Jimi, he won’t see the point even if it sticks him in the eye. There are not two competing ideologies vying for control of the government. There are two groups that have chosen seperate camps and calling themselves Democrats and Republicans. There are some sub-sets of each of those groups. They all have the same ultimate goals and we are seeing that ever more clearly as the Obama administration exposes its DLC heritage all the more blatanly. There are neocon Republicans and there are DLC Democrats. They serve the same masters and they have the same goals. They exist as distinguishable entities only for the purpose of factional control and public confusion. Both groups use social issues to further confuse the public regarding conservative versus liberal ideologies. Their economic intersts are the same. Them first, last and always. Let the suckers pay all the bills. That’s you and me they’re referring to.
It’s kinda like Ike running on “roll back” as oppossed to Truman’s “containment”. Of course Ike continued containment as did everyone else until the end of the Cold War. I’ll bet the “Bush Doctrine” or at least a large portion of it will be kept alive for decades.
ike?
Jack and coberly,
I get it. Basically your saying the Party of the Presidency doesn’t matter since for all practical purposes they are the same, just with a change in style and salesmanship.
(Yes snarky, but I do get your point). (And admit it you at least smiled)
So since the political mainstream is rigged, exactly what do you propose to do about it? Move to Argentina? I here that government there will leave you be…
My snark has been mostly aimed at the many around here who upon Dem total control of government expected everything to change into some Swedish type socialist nirvana. Heck the Dems can’t even close Gitmo. And you have some on the left asking for Obama to “go off’ on BP. As if throwing a temper tantrum would somehow change the laws of physics or motivate the BP engineers who have been working around clock to just ‘plug the hole’.
I could go on, but even conceding your point, there is no way a McCaine administration would have even thought about touching SS after the drubbing Bush got for far, far less than what Obama and the Dems are pushing. It is very likely (I fear) that we will see Obama and the Dems gut FDR’s signature legislation.
But you guys didn’t like Bush’s foriegn policy so you voted in Obama and the Dems. Hows that going for you?
(And coberly, the stockholders hire the CEO to make them money, that’s his job)
Islam will change
Jack,
“You speak of Conservatives as being separate and distinct from Republicans”
So it is true that you don’t know what your talking…No need to read the rest of your comment
Timing is at the heart of all good comedy. Obama has just started making public statements that peal away things that are arguably parts of the Bush doctrine. So thanks for the comic relief.
Now, the problem is, the “Bush Doctrine” is not like the Powell Doctrine, in that is was never set down on paper as a single set of principles. However, the term is fairly closely associated with pre-emptive war.The problem with the pre-emptive war element of the Bush Doctrine is that it is criminal, unrealistic, relies on a hegemony that we will eventually lose, and then won’t want the precedent and would cost us all of our allies if practiced routinely.
The discussion here is about those elements of Washington that are common to both parties, largely because they are bought and paid for by the same moneyed interests. You have managed to pick a policy that doesn’t serve the needs of moneyed interests, and which, to the extent that it involves the 1% doctrine, pre-emptive war, torture anybody that paid informants say is a bad guy approach to foriegn affairs, almost certainly won’t survive the Obama administration. It would not have survived the Reagan or Nixon or Daddy Bush administrations is they had succeeded Shrub. None of them were so focused on “game changers” and “not debating with myself” and all that nonsense, to the exclusion of careful policy formulation.
So thanks for the laugh.
Timing is at the heart of all good comedy. Obama has just started making public statements that peal away things that are arguably parts of the Bush doctrine. So thanks for the comic relief.
Now, the problem is, the “Bush Doctrine” is not like the Powell Doctrine, in that is was never set down on paper as a single set of principles. However, the term is fairly closely associated with pre-emptive war.The problem with the pre-emptive war element of the Bush Doctrine is that it is criminal, unrealistic, relies on a hegemony that we will eventually lose, and then won’t want the precedent and would cost us all of our allies if practiced routinely.
The discussion here is about those elements of Washington that are common to both parties, largely because they are bought and paid for by the same moneyed interests. You have managed to pick a policy that doesn’t serve the needs of moneyed interests, and which, to the extent that it involves the 1% doctrine, pre-emptive war, torture anybody that paid informants say is a bad guy approach to foriegn affairs, almost certainly won’t survive the Obama administration. It would not have survived the Reagan or Nixon or Daddy Bush administrations if they had succeeded Shrub. None of them were so focused on “game changers” and “not debating with myself” and all that nonsense, to the exclusion of careful policy formulation.
So, it appears that buffy’s point has to do with the strawman that he began building even before Bush left office. Back then, buffy insisted Obama would “own” the economy from the day he arrived in office. He told Bush opponents here what they were thinking, and what he insisted they were thinking was the childish stuff he is insisting on today.
So let’s just review the record. At every turn, buffy and jimi and CoRev have sneered at ideas, no matter how well supported by evidence, that don’t fit their own political bias. They have insisted, insituated and implied that others’ views were the mirror image of their own – that every party to the discussion is as narrow and as married to some partisan position as they are. Anyone who sees the world differently than they do fervently hopes for some socialist Utopia – one day Swedish, the next day Soviet, for variety, maybe?
Take for instance, this childish taunt:
“But you guys didn’t like Bush’s foriegn policy so you voted in Obama and the Dems. Hows that going for you?”
Let’s see – voted for one of two possible options, because we live in what is solidly a two-party political system. Having chosen candidates mostly – but for some of us, not entirely – from the party that did not give us, we necessarily (in buffy-world) believe everything that Obama says and are necessarily crushed to our souls that he isn’t championing that socialist Utopia buffy insists we favor. Oh, and just for fun, let’s not miss the Palinism. Is this really any way to use a brain?
I understand that getting opponents to defend positions you force on them rather than their own positions is a tried and true debating trick, but seriously, you should try discussing people’s actual views with them, rather than saddling them up with little strawman notions. Well, first, you should see if you can actually understand a position that isn’t a strawman of your own making.
So, it appears that buffy’s point has to do with the strawman that he began building even before Bush left office. Back then, buffy insisted Obama would “own” the economy from the day he arrived in office. He told Bush opponents here what they were thinking, and what he insisted they were thinking was the childish stuff he is insisting on today.
So let’s just review the record. At every turn, buffy and jimi and CoRev have sneered at ideas, no matter how well supported by evidence, that don’t fit their own political bias. They have insisted, insinuated and implied that others’ views were the mirror image of their own – that every party to the discussion is as narrow and as married to some partisan position as they are. Anyone who sees the world differently than they do fervently hopes for some socialist Utopia – one day Swedish, the next day Soviet, for variety, maybe?
Take for instance, this childish taunt:
“But you guys didn’t like Bush’s foriegn policy so you voted in Obama and the Dems. Hows that going for you?”
Let’s see – voted for one of two possible options, because we live in what is solidly a two-party political system. Having chosen candidates mostly – but for some of us, not entirely – from the party that did not give us, we necessarily (in buffy-world) believe everything that Obama says and are necessarily crushed to our souls that he isn’t championing that socialist Utopia buffy insists we favor. Oh, and just for fun, let’s not miss the Palinism. Is this really any way to use a brain?
I understand that getting opponents to defend positions you force on them rather than their own positions is a tried and true debating trick, but seriously, you should try discussing people’s actual views with them, rather than saddling them up with little strawman notions. Well, first, you should see if you can actually understand a position that isn’t a strawman of your own making.
Yeah right.
kharris-one question: Are drone attacks in Pakistan pre-emptive war?
Buff,
That’s mostly the point. Same shit, new suit. And the Gulf spill is a good example of continuous government support for incredibly inept performance. Obama inherited what the last four Presidents, maybe the last six or seven, laid out before him. The opnlt thing they’ve done well is to make the extrememyl rich obscenely rich. The rest of us aren’t keeping pace, The point of a Bush presidency is to make such an extreme display of incompetence so as to give the impression that anything that follows has to be a vast improvement. That’s when you have to watch the hen house more closely.
Coberly,
“our side the democrats’ fault” is to fail to realize that first the people commenting here have explicitly said “the deomcrats” are not on our side and “it” is their fault because they are taking money from the same people your side is taking money from.”
People who typically vote Republican consistantly clense the Republican party. Everytime a Republican goes agianst the will of Conservatives or if Conservatives get fooled into believing that a certian Republican actually believes in Conservative values, but in reality is merely a RINO, he is thrown out.
Is that the standard in the Democratic Party…Hell No!
There is a clear double standard that started long time ago. Do you really believe that Obama and the Democrats got this type of power because of their values and policies. If you do I have a bridge to sell you. It took a tremendous amount of Conservatives to put these fools in office. Why? Because the public decided in cleaning house, and not to mention Obama and almost every Democrat politican lied off their ass and ran way the right of the way they actually govern.
Conservatives knew they were screwed either way. Let’s get real here….it’s not like McCain was actually picked by Conservatives or even typical Republican voters to run against Clinton or Obama. The Democratic machine, the media, and the progressive Republican RINO establishment picked him for us.
It’s too late now…It’s a race to the bottom…the hard-Core Progressives control the Democratic Party, and they know they got to do as much damage to Capitalism as quickly as possible, because the cycle is going the other way now, and Democratics won’t get the kind of power they have now for at least 12 years.
It’s been a F’n laughable disgusting shameful digrace to the population of this country, but hopefully Republicans can get enough power to fix some of the damage, and be a true stop gap to the Progressive Steamroller.
Jack,
“There are not two competing ideologies vying for control of the government. There are two groups that have chosen seperate camps and calling themselves Democrats and Republicans. There are some sub-sets of each of those groups.“
Well thanks for the update Captian Obvious. We’re several steps ahead of you over here. The point is Conservatives can cleanse thier party once they figure it out, and often vote for Democrats in process…Does it work the other way with Democrats…Hell No!
Democratic supporters spent all their time attacking Republicans and Conservatives, and allowed their Political Party turn into a running joke, and has allowed it to become the greatest threat this country has.
You want to control the money men? You want to look out for the little guy? Well then quite growing the size of government and destroying the capitalist system, which in turn puts shackles on the Shadow Government…just like we been telling you for years. But no….we gotta grow the government, increase dependence on that government which ends up giving the money men more tools to screw us over.
At some point once you realize the people who pay for the election show (or is it show election?) are going to get their way no matter who the voters nominally choose. It is at that point the question might be asked why make elections dependent on fund raising at all?
To get elections without election fundraising you can either: 1> Make all elections publicly financed thus creating another huge transfer from the public to the broadcasters or 2> Ban all paid political advertising on commercial broadcast media.
Although I realize #2 runs straight into the first amendment, not to mention the SCOTUS recent decision removing all constraints on corporate funding for campaigns, it’s probably the more reasonable solution over the long term. Without millions of dollars in broadcast ad buys it would be literally impossible to spend the $5.3B spent on the 2008 “contest”. It also eliminates the presumptive advantage conferred on the wealthy who can “self finance” (Oh hi “Mayor” Bloomberg)
Unfortunately the first problem in getting a proposal like this debated is the obvious conflict of interest it poses for the major media networks, who capture about 90% of the spending on campaigns.
JIMI SAID, ‘…then quite growing the size of government and destroying the capitalist system”
Therein is proof positive that you are a complete idiot. The capitalist system is part and parcel the government. Both the legislative and executive branches have a revolving door through which stalwarts of corporate America revolve. The corporate managerial format is America’s brand of capitalism The size of a government relates to the size of a sovereign state. The economic ideology that that state worships and employs has nothing to do with the size of its government.
Jimi, You need to heed that old Irish admonition and make certain that before you put your mouth in gear you engage your brain.
kharris
i wish i could agree with you, but the evidence i see is that obama is continuing the bush wars…maybe he had no choice, but there is certainly no huge break in policy. and i think Gitmo is still in business and the “trials” of terrorists are at best a joke.
worse, he seems to be continuing the trickle down policies after they have been proven to fail. this is not so strange in human history. bad religions persist long after their messiah fails to appear (and in the slim possibility that some chrstians read this, that’s not exactly what i am talking about).
so i’m not laughing yet.
jimi
i really think you should donate your brain to science. not because it is so defective, but because it is defective in such a common way.
Buff
since i essentially agree with you, i’m not sure what we are arguing about. it seems to me that you slide from agreeing with me to confusing me with the idiot left. and i hasten to say to the non idiot left that they must realize they have their own jimi’s. and yes i understand about the CEO. that’s what i was saying about the President.
what to do about it? beats me. keep fighting “as if”? i have to admit i feel betrayed by O, but I know better. I even saw it coming. and i stlll feel betrayed. who said any of us was rational?
by the way, i didn’t think you were being snarky. i thought you were agreeing with me.
kharris
that was a clearer way of putting it than i did. i don’t think Buff is using it as a debating trick. i think one part of his mind just can’t let go of the idea that “we” are democrats and therefore we are just like every other democrat. something every democrat could tell him, “if only.”
amateur
you realize your proposal would cut the GDP by ten percent.
what’s worse, if you look at your local elections which are not big money events, you can see that the people still vote for fools.
to be honest, it amazes me that the country works as well as it does. the only reason i can think of is that the people who run the government can’t think of everything.
hmm. maybe jimi is right.
No, I don’t actually realize that the GDP would be cut by 10 percent. Want to show the math or at least provide a citation? Unless you’re arguing that corruption amounts to 10% of GDP heh. An interesting conjecture and certainly novel as a defense of the existing regime.
The amazing thing is how little money it takes to pervert the political process. As George Will observed the amount blown on the 2008 election (yet another new record) is actually smaller than the national market for Potato Chips. Crunch on that.
Then once you’ve imagined a world where politicians are not required to spend the vast majority of their time fundraising for the next election (no hyperbole there many cites available of politicians who quit because they tired of the money chase) the price tag gets pretty reasonable, because graft becomes something a lot easier to identify and sort out.
Yes yes yes “You may say I’m a dreamer… but I’m not the only one” as the old hit song went…
You may miss my point so I will try to restate – getting big money out of politics doesn’t stop people from voting for fools. It makes it possible for politics to be something people who don’t want to spend their time chasing money can actually do.
amateur
my “10% of GDP” was hyperbole. or as they say in the business, a joke. but for all that, i could probably provide citations if you can make it worth my while.
Kharris,
Actually it was catus (Mike) who said Obama or Hillary (and we can go back further than that to whomever won the 2008 election) owned the economy once they took office. Its the basis of his book – I assume you haven’t skipped those post. heck cactus even once went so far that the President elect owned the economy once the election results were know since Wall Street would factor in the new Presidents policies in the stock market.
And I don’t sneer at your ideas when they are suported by evidence. Mike has every right to point out that GDP growth was higher under almost every Dem President than the Rep Presidents since Hoover. No argument at all, just a statement of fact. But then he made a huge logical jump to say Dems Pres. are better (defined as higher GDP growth) than Rs becuase Dem President CAUSE higher GDP growth. Mike has no evidence to support that and the implied assumptions that need to be true make the notion laughable.
So bring some evidence.
coberly, You are Democrats becuase you vote Democratic party and support their policies. If your not a Dem I’ll refrain from lumping you in with the Obama Dems. But Obama is what the Democratic Party stood up and said they want as their President. So you and KHarris may not be insane DKos types, you still supporting the same things.
And your support for SS would not be in jeopardy in McCaine was in office…
Islam will change
coberly,
i bet we agree far more on this topic than we disagree. I’m just snarky about it since we are on a ‘slightly left-of center economics blog.”
Plus I can usually translate coberlyse to English fairly well. 🙂
As long as we can agree the price tag is too high we’ll be fine.
Another funny and bizarre recent development has been the crooks-stealing-from-crooks revelations of people actually hijacking the political money machine. 2 years ago we had the ugly spectacle of the national GOP realizing they were unable to pass a simple audit of their own books and now the head of the Florida GOP has been arrested away and perp-walked for stealing from the contribution til. Once you realize there’s money actually being stolen from the grifters it may be time to start thinking about an alternative way to pay for campaigns. Maybe.
Full disclosure I don’t excuse the democrats from this behavior – the Rod Blagojevich trial wherein he apparently tried to sell anything that wasn’t nailed down in Illinois to the highest bidder being only a recent high profile example. Slick Willie’s willingness to sell a night in the white house to his favorite contributors was another. But as the party out of power they may not have had enough around to make it worth the crooks while until recently.