Steve Terrell reports this morning in a story titled, Governor to dump cash from billionaire, that the Richardson for... Governor campaign will donate over $100,000 grand from billionaire Jeffrey Espstein, who Terrell reports owns the biggest homes in New Mexico ( 26,700 square foot hilltop home in stanley--has it's own landing strip and town for people that work on the property), to nonprofits throughout the state.
The Governor's campaign did the same with contributions from Guy Riordan after it was reported that Riordan had been intimately involved with Former State Treasurer Michael Vigil.
But the motive for giving back the cash doesn't have anything to do with Epstein buying favors from the Governor, but rather hookers--supposedly as many as 5 at one time while he was at his home in Florida. To tell you the truth, while I don't condone Epstein's behavior, I'd rather have Billionaires spend money on corporal pleasures than on politics.
But besides Epstein, who seems to fart thousand dollar bills, why do you think a company or an executive of a company, or a lobbyist would decide to give $50,000 a candidate or offer to fly him from one end of the country to the other?
INFLUENCE the Governor.
And why is the Governor seeking those contributions, what's his campaign going to do with that money?
INFLUENCE Voters.
The campaign will use that cash to produce television and radio spots, buy media time to play their ads, pay for campaign materials: pens, pencil's, buttons, posters, bumper stickers etc... (staff, unless they can avoid it) all to INFLUENCE us.
And this is why I'm not so impressed by the Governor's move to contribute the money to nonprofits in the state.
The presumption is that the money will be given to the most needy nonprofits with the worthiest of causes, for which there will be many people who will thank the Governor and his campaign for their charity, allowing that money to still be used by the campaign for it's intended purpose--to gain favor amongst voters. Shit, you could give me the money and I'd be grateful too, but I don't think it would sound as good in the press.
So if the Governor is going to use the money, then I suggest he not contribute to nonprofits in New Mexico, but rather Florida. That's a state with more delegate votes. And if the Governor wants to make a big impression, he could give the money to a shelter for young women trying to escape from prostitution.
Pardon me for pulling back for a larger view for a minute, but I think this is important: I keep hearing unhappy Republican voters saying that they hate Bush and the neocons, but they don't know "what the Democrats stand for". Part of this is just parroting the Rove line, but part of it is about the scattershot approach of the Dems, which sounds like lots of disparate matters, too many to hold in mind for long. I think there's cure for this, and the cure is a longer perspective under which all those many ills that need curing -- immigration, health insurance, the Idiot's War, etc. -- can be subsumed.
Look, our problem is that we've had a Party in power for years that has been dedicated to shoving the US back into the 29th C, which Carl Rove has actually said is his goal (see the infamous interview with him in the New Yorker a few years back). He meant economically, of course, since all the Republicans ever think about is profit, but the result has been that this nation has been stagnating in limbo while the rest of the world has been moving, and moving on the really *big* issues on which the smaller ones depend: energy, water, health, and defense against the changes that are coming in the cimate and environment.
The Democrats need, IMO, to present themselves as the Party that's going to turn to the big, national issues that we can't escape, and turn to them *first* -- while the more localized issues work themselves out through local politics. Here's my dream platform, and I don't think I'm dreaming alone -- all those youngsters who were mobilized for the last Presidential election and then saw their votes overridden by Kerry's timidity and the Supreme Court's mandate are waiting to hear from *somebody* about these things:
The Democrats need to stand up and say that we need our resources *here*, not in Iraq, to do the *real* work of defense, which the Republicans have not done because they can only think in terms of offense and aggression:
Put our wealth into actually getting well-trained, well-paid inspectors and technologies in place to secure our ports as well as our airports, our power grids, our communications and transport grids, and so on -- in other words, to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Report, AT LONG LAST. That means restoring FEMA to an effective state and beefing it up.
Putting our wealth into doing the engineering that needs to be done to secure *all* of our great port cities -- starting with the rescue and reinstatement of a working New Orleans and moving on the San Diego, New York, San Francisco, and others. The Dutch have been doing this sort of thing for generations: we don't even have to invent the wheel, and we might even improve on their systems and have some expertise to export in a field that all countries with coastlines will need.
Putting our wealth and our muscle into kicking our automobile companies into high gear to produce flex-fuel cars at least as good as the ones that are turning up rapidly in many countries that we consider our "inferiors". People should know that Brazil will achieve *energy independence* this year, while we're still fighting oil wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and that the Democrats are going to throw their weight into getting us onto our own track toward energy independence tailored to suit our own needs.
The Democrats should commit publicly to closing the "doughnut hole" in the Medicare RX plan, lifting the ban on Medicare getting the lowest prices it can from drug companies, and overhauling the system when we have a solid idea of just what else needs to be done to make it actually work for the voters, not for the drug companies.
There are other items, of course, that other people can come up with: but the point is, *the Republicans are not just conservatives, they're *reactionaries*, and they've been dragging us back into the past; the Democrats must become again what they once were -- the Party of our needs *now*, the Party that will bring the stagnant US into the 21st Century at last.
Oh, yes, I forgot -- what about paying for all this big stuff? Let's rememer that the Republicans have been the Party of huge spending for years -- spending our money in other countries, like Iraq. The Democrats should be the Party of whatever spending is necessary to get needed work done HERE, while pulling back on offensive military spending. We don't HAVE to pay to support an enormous standing army to protect the world; let the world protect itself. Turn our spending into *real* defense spending -- money that pays to defend our physical country from Terrorists or other hostiles, and from an increasingly violent and unpredictable climate, while feeding that money into the home economy, creating LOTS AND LOTS OF JOBS here in the US, and not just jobs for eggheads and computer geeks: we're talking huge construction and engineering projects here, work for people who can't find hands-on manufacturing jobs they'd be happy to do.
We can pay by raising taxes, which nobody wants to do: or we can pay by cutting our outrageously bloated aggressive military spending and diverting a chunk of it into actual *defense* spending. Or we can continue to just print money, as previous administrations have been doing (both Parties, alas), which drives up the National debt and drives down the value of the dollar. Getting "defense" spending back to actual DEFENSE is the best way to mobilize our wealth to actually work for us, not against other countries for the benefit of the oil companies.
We can put America to work strengthening *itself*, instead of pouring money down a sinkhole while trying to strengthen Iraq, and get some prosperity spread through our nation again, to prevent further polarization into a class society, which we do *not* want to be (well, some do, but those are not Democrats).
We've need to defend *ourselves* from the downside of Globalization -- which has been the bleeding away of wealth, security, and jobs.
As for the hot-button issues -- immigration, abortion rights, etc. -- those can be thrashed out as we go along *while* our long neglected national necessities are dealt with in the foreground: energy, health, jobs, security. Our country is in a mess at home as well as abroad: the Democrats must present themselves as the Party of forging ahead again, instead of trailing behind, fighting rear-guard wars about issues that can be leapfrogged by mobilizing our talent, our energy, and our wealth to push forward into new conditions.
The rest of the world is making vital transitiions: we're not, and we need to be.
Plus: no contracts for Halliburton til they pay back what they've ripped off. No more corporate welfare. We know what all the negatives are: WE NEED TO PRESENT THE POSITIVES, and those revolve around *really* doing what the Republicans have only *said* they were doing, but, of course, didn't: building what we need to compete in the new century, starting with security.
And what better State for these ideas to come from, put forward forcefully and clearly, than New Mexico, a growing State with a strong technology base? These issues are *positive*, and they're ready-made, in fact they're stamped "stopped by Republicans", and it will take Democrats to pick them up and take them forward.
And finally -- we've got to mean it, and follow through. That means, set up task forces *now*, consulting groups *now*, so that when Democrats take over, they don't start with "now let's make some committees to investigate situations before we start begining to launch endless, expensive studies about what should be done."
This starts with *deeds*; don't start down this path unless you mean to damn well *go* there, to the end. Otherwise, you guarantee failure, a fallling back into old ways of complacency, pork-barrelling, and ineffectual blather, and thus guarantee the final victory of the opposition, and a Republican Century.
A Democratic Century starts with "Enough talk; we know what needs doing. Let's DO it." Don't get mired in commissions, inquiries, punishment of culprits (although there are many of them and they deserve punishment).
Just some thoughts . . . from a long time, many-times-disappointed Democrat. I'm trying to save my country. What is the Democratic Party doing?
Posted by: Suzy Charnas | Thursday, August 24, 2006 at 12:55 PM