Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditLet us establish a simple standard with regard to the race for the Democratic presidential nomination: Any candidate who raises more in a quarter than all the Democratic candidates did in a parallel quarter four years ago is doing just fine.
As such, both Illinois Senator Barack Obama and New York Senator Hillary Clinton had a great second quarter of 2OO7.
Obama did better, with $32 million raised. But Clinton did fine, with $27 million.
And what of the other contenders?
If we go by the money measure, former North Carolina Senator John Edwards, with around $9 million, may be slipping from the first tier that he has until occupied with Clinton and Obama.
That, at least, is what the money-obsessed pundits tell us.
But grassroots activists should ask themselves a question about the money primary?
Why are the frontrunners raising so much money? Is it because they have the best ideas? The best bases of support?
Hardly. Clinton, who has been the strongest figure in the recent Democratic debates, is raising her money in big chunks from many of the same business interests that backed George W. Bush and other Republicans. Obama has a broader pool of givers, but the attraction seems to be his personal dynamism rather than his soft stands on the issues and his tepid debate performances -- and he, too, is attracting a good deal of so-called "establishment" money.
In fact, as Republican presidential contenders struggle to keep up with the Democrats in the fund-raising race, there is much evidence to suggest that big-money interests are moving their chips to the Democratic table and placing their bets on Clinton and to a somewhat lesser extent on Obama.
Clinton and Obama are acceptable to those interests.
Edwards, in contrast, has taken strong stands and attracted a substantial number of small contributors. Unfortunately for Edwards, many of his strong stands challenge corporate power -- in ways that neither Clinton or Obama has so far done. He's talking about the need to change free-trade policies that have cost the U.S. jobs and security, and he does not hesitate to suggest that corporations and the wealthy should pay their fair share of the nation's tax burden.
As a result, Edwards does not attract the "cushion" of wealthy, Wall Street-tied donors that the frontrunners enjoy.
The same goes for the even bolder candidacies of Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich and former Alaska Senator Mike Gravel. It should come as no surprise that the willingness of Kucinich and Gravel to speak truth to power makes it hard for them to raise money from the powerful.
The question for Democratic voters is this: Do they want to replace Bush with someone who is acceptable to the same people who gave us Bush? Or do they want a real change?
If the only measure is money, then the same monied interests that defined the Bush era will define the post-Bush era, whether the next president is a Democrat or a Republican.
But if the goal is to end the Bush era of misdeed and miscalculation, and to set a new course, then grassroots Democrats must look beyond the money primary -- toward the ideals and idea primary where Edwards continues to be a frontrunner. That may be why, when delegates at state Democratic conventions have cast their straw-poll ballots -- most recently in Wisconsin -- Edwards has frequently come out on top.
It is certainly why, despite what the pundits would have us believe, we should continue to treat the 2OO4 Democratic vice presidential nominee as a serious contender. We'd be wise to do the same for Kucinich, Gravel and Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd, as well as for Republicans who have more ideas than dollars, such as Texas congressman Ron Paul. Big money has done a lot of ruin our politics, but it should not dictate who gets attention at a point when the only primaries that should matter are still months away.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Nichols's book The Rise and Rise of Richard B. Cheney: Unlocking the Mysteries of the Most Powerful Vice President in American History (The New Press) is available nationwide at independent bookstores and at www.amazon.com. Publisher's Weekly describes it as "a Fahrenheit 9/11 for Cheney" and Esquire magazine says it "reveals the inner Cheney." The London Review of Books says The Rise and Rise of Richard B. Cheney "makes a persuasive case…that the vice-presidency is the real locus of power in the current administration: Cheney runs the show."
Share this article
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
NICHOLS: Big money has done a lot of ruin our politics, but it should not dictate who gets attention at a point when the only primaries that should matter are still months away.
But, in defense of money, you always know what they are after! No IFs & BUTs! Pure of motives to protect their own interests! And, Big Money generally aren't likely to be easily persuaded to turn into Socialists!
Yes, HRC & Obama appear to be among the `Acceptables'! Th U.S.S. America doesn't need to be rocked! A 3 or 4 degree change-of-course? Why not?
Posted by Happy at 07/05/2007 @ 4:06pm
The amount of money a candidate raises is directly proportional to how much attention they can command in the media because the media charges serious money for "attention".
Nearly all of the money raised will go to targeted TV advertisements, and these ads must compete with large corporate multinationals who also want to advertise in the same time segments as the political ads.
The only way to get to some sort of "ideas primary" as the author suggests is to give equal "public" money to all candidates with some minimum level of popular support, prohibit them from spending any more than that for their campaigns, and restrict so-called "independent" groups from running campaign ads during the election cycle.
The Supreme Court has given the green light to these independent ad campaigns with their irresponsible recent decision on free speech. Congress, now, must step up and put the pressure on FCC-licensed networks to do their public duty by providing equal time to candidates and prohibiting the independent ads from running during the election cycle.
Posted by Metteyya at 07/05/2007 @ 4:39pm
Are there data showing that the candidate with the biggest war chest wins an election? If there is a correlation, we should not be surprised if 2008 ushered in another George Bush. If this the way America is going to go, we'd better figure out how to get rid of him/her/it quickly and painlessly and we'd better pay close attention to who his/her/its vice is.
I have a feeling that the qualities of an individual that get him elected are the very qualities that make him a bad president which is, if nothing else, an indictment of our presidential system of government.
Posted by felicity at 07/05/2007 @ 5:52pm
those who wish to take the money out of the political equation are baying at the moon. until people actually get to vote in the primaries, money is an indicator of how a candidate fares in competition. money is the mother's milk of politics, it is said.that the dems are raising more money than the repubs is a stronger statement than all the polls.repubs raus.
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2007 @ 5:53pm
have a feeling that the qualities of an individual that get him elected are the very qualities that make him a bad president which is, if nothing else, an indictment of our presidential system of government.
Posted by FELICITY
In the age of Television, 24/7 news cycles and the internet, I fear you might have hit the nail on the head there........
Posted by davebarlett at 07/05/2007 @ 6:30pm
And what of the other contenders?
If we go by the money measure, former North Carolina Senator John Edwards, with around $9 million, may be slipping from the first tier that he has until occupied with Clinton and Obama.
That, at least, is what the money-obsessed pundits tell us.
So is Ari Berman one of the money-obsessed pundits? His post previous to Nichols makes the claim that McCain is dead because he is lagging in fund-raising.
I don't support either Edwards or McCain but it is curious that the Nation writers appear at war with each other over this issue.
Posted by antiliberal at 07/05/2007 @ 6:52pm
And what successes has all the money pilferred from our very own coffers gotten hsuB, the last big raiser for the dark side:
RESIDENT BUSH – Overall Job Rating in recent national polls
Survey__________Dates__Approve__Disapprove__Unsure___Dif
CBS________6/26-28/07 ___27________65________8_____-38
FOX/O D______6/26-27/07__31________60________9_____-29
CNN/O R C____6/22-24/07__32________66________3_____-34
ARG, inc______6/18-21/97__27 _______ 67________6_____-40
Newsweek ____6/18-19/07__26________65________9_____-39
Gallup_______6/11-14/07___32________65________3_____-33
NBC/W S J____ 6/8-11/07 __29________66________5_____-37
Quinnipiac RV__6/5-11/07___28________65________7_____-37
AP-Ipsos______6/4-6/07____32________66________*_____-34
USAToday/Gallup_6/1-3/07__32________62________6_____-30
Pew_______5/30 - 6/3/07___29________61_______10_____-32
CBS/NY Times__5/18-23/07_ 30________63________7_____-33
Diageo/Hotline__5/16-20/07_32 ________64 _______4_____-32
Newsweek_____5/2-3/07 ___28________64________8_____-36
Apparently bribery only goes so far...
And yet another big reason to be looking at Al Gore-- he's polling in the top tier w/out campaigning nor fund raising... that in itself is meaningful. Not to negate the others also talking truth to power.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/05/2007 @ 7:34pm
I don't support either Edwards or McCain but it is curious that the Nation writers appear at war with each other over this issue.
Posted by ANTILIBERAL 07/05/2007 @ 6:52pm | ignore this person
at war? because they disagree? because they do not march in ideological goose step the way you and the rest of the brain dead repubs do? repubs raus.
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2007 @ 7:41pm
here's an interesting one from Der Spiegel. the german parliament has posted the side income of all its members.
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2007 @ 8:49pm
Think of it this way: Gore is elected pres-- good-bye cHeney secret energy commission war cartel, hello new growth of peaceful energy alternatives.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/05/2007 @ 11:17pm
I like the ticket: Gore/Clinton.
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/05/2007 @ 11:38pm
Antiliberal wrote: So is Ari Berman one of the money-obsessed pundits? His post previous to Nichols makes the claim that McCain is dead because he is lagging in fund-raising. ... I don't support either Edwards or McCain but it is curious that the Nation writers appear at war with each other over this issue.
Actually, there is no Nation war...but nice try! Ari's post used McCain's numbers to illustrate his rapidly collapsing support, whereas John's post above is calling attention to where the Dem primary money is coming from and what that might mean. I suggest boning up on your reading comprehension skills...here are a bunch of useful tools from the University of Connecticut [literacy.uconn.edu]. After you work through some of the exercises, then perhaps your comments here will be accurate and meaningful.
Posted by ashami at 07/05/2007 @ 11:50pm
Posted by ASHAMI 07/05/2007 @ 11:50pm
So of course you believe that Ari should have been consistent and indicated that like McCain, Edwards campaign appears to be dead because he lags so far behind in fund-raising.
I would bet that didn't occur to you in your obnoxious little snippet?
Posted by antiliberal at 07/06/2007 @ 12:54am
How about Gore/Obama?
I'm starting to think Gore has a duty to run.
It's kind of like in the Joseph Campbell "Power of Myth" stuff (yeah, yeah, send on the "myth" jokes), where the "hero" has to pass through a trial of fire (or even descend into the underworld) before he is actually ready to take up the challenge that is set before him (or her).
Maybe I'm a bit pie-eyed by his rhetoric of the past few years, but Gore seems to be the only one of any of the major contenders who could run on ideas at the moment--or at least construct a campaign more heavily weighted towards ideas than any of the others could attempt.
Posted by Rintrah at 07/06/2007 @ 04:04am
Antiliberal wrote: So of course you believe that Ari should have been consistent and indicated that like McCain, Edwards campaign appears to be dead because he lags so far behind in fund-raising. ... I would bet that didn't occur to you in your obnoxious little snippet?
Alas, you again show that your intellectual fly is unzipped. How can Ari be consistent with John when the points are different? Ari is looking at McCain's fall from being the GOP near-successor to his current pathetic position based on his sharply declining fundraising efforts, whereas John is looking at the source of income for the Dem candidates, while advocating the position that Edward's third place position in funding is more of a reflection of who is giving rather than popularity within the party (as indicated by recent delegate polling).
You might disagree with their respective analyzes (they are mere blog opinions after all), but to invent conflict (a WAR no less!) is pure intellectual dishonesty. No surprise, of course, since the Right cannot discuss politics on merit and is forced to resort to this kind of lazy sophism. You just happen to be particularly bad at it.
Posted by ashami at 07/06/2007 @ 06:47am
Perhaps Ant is attempting to channel Masky, but the mask doesn't quite yet fit...
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/06/2007 @ 08:19am
Bravo John Nichols. At least you came to your senses and got over that school boy crush you had on student council president, Hillary Clinton lately. You're an intelligent man, up-to date on the issues, amazing how little it takes for those eyes to glaze over. Easy to see why Bush had his 15 minutes in the adoring beam of the spotlight.
Posted by Lil at 07/06/2007 @ 08:39am
How do I know this? Well because Republicans want the war, not because they believe Islamic terrorists are going to kill hundreds of thousands of people, but to enrich thier filthy, greedy defense contractor buddies. It is the defense contractors whipping up the hysteria over Islamic terrorism.
how true, Mary. your best post yet.
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/06/2007 @ 09:45am
to destroy the villiage to save the villiage.
funny you should mention this.
you might also learn to spell village.
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/06/2007 @ 09:48am
Schedenfraud is the ugliest of our happy feelings.
Schadenfreude. Schaden=damage, Freude=joy. the joy in someone else's misfortune.
Having his son embarrass him in this very public fashion feels like there is justice in the universe.
that's Schadenfreude
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/06/2007 @ 10:35am
my position on drugs has been made quite clear. when reporting to jury duty, which I must under penalty of law, from time to time, I make it clear to the judge that in any drug case my sympathy rests with the defendant. that's usually enough to have me sent home.
now if something truly awful should befall you, then I might experience just the teensiest bit of Schadenfreude.
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/06/2007 @ 11:09am
Omniscient, Invisible Hand of Capitalism
The most rational argument for progressive taxation is to prevent the rich from becoming so rich that they can corrupt and subvert Democracy. Since that's already happened, doesn't it make sense to start taxing the rich at higher rates? Especially since many of the rich, who derive most their wealth from government contracts, which are paid for by middleclass taxpayers, end up paying lower tax rates than middleclass taxpayers. What with all the loopholes they've instigated into law, some government contractors pay zero taxes.
We have a government of government contractors, by government contractors, and for government contractors. Not only do they collect a lion's share of the nation's annual income, they have devised and implemented a government and tax system that rewards them immensely and disproportionably by paying lower taxes on higher incomes. Essentially, our government and tax system has been so corrupted that corruption has become the government.
Everyone knows that power corrupts, but we seem to have forgotten that money first corrupts power.
So spare us the fanatical worship of the Omniscient, Invisible Hand of Capitalism, these greedy assholes aren't Omniscient or Invisible anymore.
.
Posted by rabblerowzer at 07/06/2007 @ 11:17am
I fail to see what Gore Jr.'s escapades have to do with his father's political or environmental positions.
At least MBB was honest enough to refer to his observations as schadenfreude, instead of assigning them some sort of political relevance.
(And kudos to the younger Gore for showing all the skeptics that hybrid cars can be fun, too.)
To further twist a phrase, I guess you enter the public spotlight with the family that you've got...
Posted by drhammer at 07/06/2007 @ 11:34am
(If I thought his family to be relevant, I would have bailed on Al during Tipper's PMRC days.)
Posted by drhammer at 07/06/2007 @ 11:38am
I've posted this before. At the start of our republic, only the "landed gentry" i.e. land owners (which women and blacks couldn't be) could vote because they were viewed as the only ones with a vested interest in government.
The better you have it the more interest you have in preserving the current government. That is the most rational reason for progressive taxation.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 07/06/2007 @ 12:01pm | ignore this person
not bad, and irony free, I hope.
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/06/2007 @ 12:04pm
"I don't care to hear comments from anyone who hasn't seen the film yet."
Posted by FRANKGRITS 07/06/2007 @ 12:07pm
(Yeah, that'll work.)
Posted by drhammer at 07/06/2007 @ 12:40pm
Think of it this way: Gore is elected pres-- good-bye cHeney secret energy commission war cartel, hello new growth of peaceful energy alternatives.
Posted by HSUBFOOLS 07/05/2007 @ 11:17pm
This is kind of funny to me because I'm more objective than most here.
(Really? Is that another way of saying "Fair and Balanced". Lets see.)
The Republicans are evil because they are using fear to trick the population into supporting an illegal war.
(Well you left out-- a war not based on almost no facts nor especially science, i.e. hsuB/cHeney kicked out WMD inspectors in order to go to war. Yeah ok evil is a good word to describe it.)
The Democrats are the saviors of the human race because, due to global warming, the world will end by 2050 when the Oceans raise 10 meters.
(Exaggeration and ridicule, of course when a new con can't deny the facts or the science, change the game to 'swift boating' the truth and make false analogies.)
What do you mean the Democrats are using fear just like the Republicans? Telling people they should fear global warming is different because that's a real threat, not an imaginary one.
(Ok, got part of that right at least. People need to take steps to help improve the situation rather than exacerbate it with more pollution. 'Concern', not 'fear', based on being educated to the scientific facts, like the affects of smoking and thus being careful with it, is different than making shit up about it being good for you or leaving important parts out like the science, to a point where one is just as ignorant before as after hearing about its bad affects, i.e. hiding the studies. )
How do I know this? Well because Republicans want the war, not because they believe Islamic terrorists are going to kill hundreds of thousands of people, but to enrich thier filthy, greedy defense contractor buddies. It is the defense contractors whipping up the hysteria over Islamic terrorism.
(Wow, got another one partially right! Some extremist want us dead is we don't get out of their country. You might be a closeted dem if you also understood we were already over there so then they came here to attack us. Doesn't mean they won't do it again, but hsuB/cHeney letting OBL's family out of the US, getting our troops out of Saudi Arabia and letting OBL alone, probably has a lot to do with Al Gaeda not coming after us here-- do you think!?!?!)
With global warming, the hysteria is being whipped up by rock stars and other hollywood celebrities. And it is supported by irrefutable proof from scientists (most of whom are funded by government) so their movites for advocating a government solution to the problems they are warning about can't be question.
(Well no, it's not 'fear' that is being 'whipped up' by rock stars. They're volunteers not unlike Jerry Lewis, asking for help during a tellathon. Are you saying Jerry scares people into contributing or is he educating people into action with contributions? A lot of stars can actually read technical info in English, read scientific reports and do the math, true some can't, not too unlike a lot of new con supporters, servicers of dictator philosophy, choosing 'not' to read or do the math or just closed to even the idea of fact-finding to the point of not 'believing' for spiritual reasons-- in science!?!?!)
Do you see the similarities?
(Er, no.)
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 07/06/2007 @ 09:02am
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/06/2007 @ 2:04pm
Gore is the most arrogant politician we have; I mean, he's even worse than Jimmy Carter. His smug condescension is more than I can take. Having his son embarrass him in this very public fashion feels like there is justice in the universe.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 07/06/2007 @ 10:32am
Sounds like you can't handle the truth. The truth being that they may very well be smarter than you are and you know it and thus everything they do is colored by your jealousy of them, but their arrogance is only them being smarter than you-- do you think!!?!
When you can admit that there may be even a little of that going on, perhaps there 'is' hope for you.
Funny you aren't upset with hsuB's smugness, throwing everyone the bird, disregaurding the law, our constitution, sending our troops to die and be maimed in an unecessary war... But then no one can accuse hsuB of smarts-- and which is really what your problem with Gore is.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/06/2007 @ 2:25pm
er,...a war not based on almost any facts...
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/06/2007 @ 2:28pm
er, ...extremist want us dead as we won't get out of their country.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/06/2007 @ 2:30pm
But for me this is the opposite of Sooter Libby. You guys are pissed, and rightly so, that someone you hate got away with committing a crime. It's the same way white racists felt when O.J. got away with it.
Posted by MARYBRETBRAD 07/06/2007 @ 10:32am
Ah, so caring about our country and the rule of law equates us with the KKK? Very sharp reasoning there mary old girl.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/06/2007 @ 2:37pm
....We have a government of government contractors, by government contractors, and for government contractors.....Essentially, our government and tax system has been so corrupted that corruption has become the government.
Posted by RABBLEROWZER 07/06/2007 @ 11:17am
Sounds like you are anti-Big Government! Yes, Government already has "power" and through taxation, also "money". IF even more money/taxes goes to Big Brother, there assuredly will be even more Gov't contracts and of course, contractors.
No one in their Right mind want the Government to have more of both! Glad to see you are moving to the Right side....just dump the taxing the rich as some kind of punishment for success!
Posted by Happy at 07/06/2007 @ 2:39pm
just dump the taxing the rich as some kind of punishment for success!
Posted by HAPPY 07/06/2007 @ 2:39pm
Too he who is given much, much is expected. They can fucking well afford to PAY THEIR SHARE.
Posted by Dr Decibels at 07/06/2007 @ 2:50pm
New con supporters, servicers of dic'tator philosophy, hate intellectualism and science-- without it, repubs can make shit up as they go and there's no one accountable... not even to the law. What's the law if there are no facts!?!?
When there are no facts, or they are secret, all that rules is 'might': 'might makes right'. Thus everyone yells at each other and whoever is louder and yells the longest-- wins.
But what is it that is won? In the case of the hsuB/cHeney admin, it wins disaster-- one right after another. Disasters because their choices aren't based on facts, but on delusions-- marketing fantasies, fairy tales. Only new con supporters, servicers of dic'tator philosophy, are already so dumbed down they can't see it.
Yet, that's changing. More and more people are seeing the truth. The truth being that the hsuB/cHeney admin is itself the biggest disaster and it has got to be impeached now or it'll continue creating more disasters for our nation, based on its delusions and not on any facts.
And yet another reason for Al Gore to run for president. (And make no assumption that he would/could not win, he will.) Al is the perfect antidote for the last few years of dumb-ass criminals at the helm.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/06/2007 @ 3:04pm
Let us thank Happy who wrote "No one in their Right mind want the Government to have more of both! Glad to see you are moving to the Right side....just dump the taxing the rich as some kind of punishment for success!"
This is a wonderful example of bankrupt Conservative thinking. In their fantasy world, fairness=punishment. See, Happy says "Sounds like you are anti-Big Government!" However, a look at the post shows that the writer is clearly anti-corruption and anti-wealth consolidation. But as Right-leaning commenters repeatedly show, reading comprehension is not their strongest suit.
Posted by ashami at 07/06/2007 @ 3:33pm
In their fantasy world, fairness=punishment.
Posted by ASHAMI 07/06/2007 @ 3:33pm
Liberals fantasizing what they think is "fairness" is thus, Fairness!! Sorry, but your "is" is NOT my "is"....go ask Clinton why!
Tell me, in a quantitative non-sociological sense, why taxing someone at 35%, 45%, etc...is fair when others (able-bodied) have effectively zero or negative tax (benefits handed to them)?
And, why selective colleges let folks who score lower on the SATs get in when lots of higher scorers are kept out? I hope you or your relatives are or will be in this `boat'....cause many folks' kids face this very issue, including mine!
The Libs/Left haven't the slightest idea that their `fairness' is someone else' UNfairness!
Posted by Happy at 07/06/2007 @ 5:38pm
Posted by HAPPY 07/06/2007 @ 5:38pm | ignore this person
get someone to explain the difference between the have everythings and the have nots to you.
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/06/2007 @ 6:07pm
The Libs/Left haven't the slightest idea that their `fairness' is someone else' UNfairness!
Posted by HAPPY 07/06/2007 @ 5:38pm
You mean like a criminal being found guilty and going to prison and another being wealthier and being friends with the powers that be, not going to prison. Yep, that's equitable-- very repub Libbiness.
As well those that benefit most by using the US of A system-- should contribute the most. As long as every rich person pays back equally to other rich people in their level, nothing wrong there. However a poor person benefiting the least and needing a little help as to not getting to that desperate point of self hate, suicide, or violence against others to make or steal a buck, is a good thing when all is considerred. Think of it as the rich paying the masses not to revolt against them for living a lot better than they are. Plus it also projects to wannabes, that anything is possible when the rich are still charitable and not evil. Right, not evil...
As for college, fairness is actually already on the other foot so to speak-- have you ever heard of the phrase "ability to benefit" ? It's against the law to enroll any student that hasn't shown that they have the ability to fulfill college level curriculum successfully. Ok, but you say what about the 'most' qualified being accepted over those less so based solely on SAT/ACT scores? Nope, won't happen. Well, for starters, criteria varies according to the 'major' or focus and the applicants special ability and whether or not its skills based. An applicant's scores aren't so hot, but they're a great harpsichordist (music major) or a mathmatician and wants into engineering-- they're in. Someone with better overall scores but wants into history, doesn't get in per others in that major with better writings! Plus also there's a measurement based on their determination or obsticles overcome, socio-economic condition, area coming from and school attended,... And then all that is negated for people like hsuB, a legacy and atomatically admitted per Poppy. And then there are 'donors' or senator's kids... in. Yep, one has to be poor and very smart or not so smart and very rich and lots of variations there-in or have a very special ability.
Ultimately, if one is pretty well off, but not filthy rich and one doesn't get into a college one wants, not having experienced many obsticles before, a family tantrum is normal. They sue. Take a year or two off to win or lose. Makes it all more expensive too. It is a learning process after all.
Other less fortunate families learn how to cope and manage their flexible skills for best practice amist adversity or making the best of a negative situation. They go to another college and graduate on time, less expense.
er, what was you're question... Oh fairnes. It's about the facts-- all the proven facts, objective, reliable, accurate measurements with high repeatability, linearity, resolution, transparent and scientific.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/06/2007 @ 7:04pm
$50,000 a year fro some colleges.
Posted by johannesrolf at 07/06/2007 @ 7:49pm
And, why selective colleges let folks who score lower on the SATs get in when lots of higher scorers are kept out? I hope you or your relatives are or will be in this `boat'....cause many folks' kids face this very issue, including mine!
The Libs/Left haven't the slightest idea that their `fairness' is someone else' UNfairness!
Posted by HAPPY 07/06/2007 @ 5:38pm | ignore this person
Intersting questions there Hap. Let's take a close look, shall we...
I'm in the process now of reading an excellent book called "The Price of Admission" by Daniel Golden. It's a Pulitzer Prize winner...an exhaustively researched look at the admissions practices of Ivy League schools. Turns out that nearly every one of them routinely turns down a very large percentage of applicants...applicants with impeccable scholastic credentials like perfect SAT scores, 4.0 averages, top 5 - 10% of their classes, etc. In fact, in many of the most elite educational institutions in this country, the rejection rate for such candidates runs around 90%.
At the exact same time, those who are mostly male, mostly white, invariably quite rich, famous, and politically well-connected get thier children admitted at rates well over 50%...with academic credentials far, far, FAR below the standards described above.
We all know that you meant to refer to affirmative action admissions practices. But, it seems you have described the situation perfectly...but EXACTLY backwards. In reality, it's the rich, white, and politically powerful who have CREATED and perpetuate the problem you have described.
Affirmative action programs were created as the cure!
Posted by Lillian at 07/06/2007 @ 7:49pm
Yep, got out with a terminal degree just in time. Most I paid for tuition was $200 in one semester and I was pissed off because it was so much. But that was for 21 hours, 7 classes, pre-law! My students jaws drop when I tell them the story. My daughter now is a soph at UT and I pay about $4000 a semester for 12-15 hours; flat fee tuition rate for anything over 12 hours. That doesn't include books and supplies, room and board, maintenence... No way can I convince her to take 21 hours at a time. She thinks I was insane to take that many classes when I was an undergrad and work too. My, how times have changed.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/06/2007 @ 9:21pm
Posted by LILLIAN 07/06/2007 @ 7:49pm
The traditional practices by ivy Leagues were never based on fairness.....but, self-interest.........they have successfully propagated themselves and have mountains of endowments to prove it!
Neither myself nor my older son went to private Us! Truth be told, as far as I am concerned, private colleges can do (almost) as they please....such as disallowing ROTC on campus...and deal with losing out on Fed research fundings, etc.!
My gripe is w/public Flagship universities! Some of you have young kids (MASK & PETER ROTHBERG for eg) and maybe planning public Us' for their future....and if your kids are not in the TOP 7% (in Texas) of their graduating class, their chances are close to nil! ~75% of slots are now `taken' by top 7%-ters of all high schools! It matters not what the SAT scores or other activities are, just top x% of any school's graduating class!
May seem fair to kids from poor-performing schools, but not to highly competitive top-tier suburban high schools throughout Texas! As I said, one person's "fairness" is someone else' "UNfairness"! But, that's life.....so long as none of us have to live with ALL of someone else' definition of fairness and none of our own!!!!!
Posted by Happy at 07/06/2007 @ 9:41pm
then you should be happy
you hamsters think the actions of the chimp administration are fair.
Posted by Will C. at 07/07/2007 @ 02:22am
affirmative action is saved!!!!!
Posted by Will C. at 07/07/2007 @ 02:23am
HA,
Once again, there are lots of variations to the admission top 10% rule depending on the departmental major criteria-- if it has restricted admissions in addition to the university's, the top 10% rule is variable. BTW I've seen lots of 1600-2400 SAT scorers bomb when they don't realize they have to put in 60 hours of study a week and they're use to 10-20 at best. It's the students that were busting their butts in high school studying 40-50 hours a week already that manage the transistion to college best. For restricted departments or colleges, about 50-60% are in the top 10%, 15-20% are in the top quartile, with the rest in the 2nd quartile depending on the pool. It comes down to a specific skill set required and sought in the application process, auditions, portfolios; which seek students with the best chance of succeeding to graduation. It's true however for colleges with nonrestricted admission, that they very well may actually have top 5% limitations...
As for students graduating from better high schools having a harder time getting into UT, the truth be told, these students also have access to more resources and more colleges to select from than students that come from poorer districts. Thus it balances out somewhat in the bigger picture.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/07/2007 @ 02:43am
I'd say of every 1000 applications, about 250 get into our college. A lot mess-up their application, forget to turn in a transcript or essay. And some that complete their application and still don't get in are top 10% and 2400 SAT scorers. It's simply because of their other skill set that they do get admitted. I'd say most if not a large portion of our students recieve student financial assistance.
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/07/2007 @ 03:02am
Posted by HAPPY 07/06/2007 @ 9:41pm | ignore this person
Oh sure...I get your point now Happy...bias and prejudice and discrimination and extending special priveleges and affirmative action are ALL perfectly fine with you...as long as it's those 'private' institutions who cater to the white and rich doing it. Not a problem at all, right Hap.
But those 'public' institutions that are for everyone else....well THEY must be held to a completely different standard of 'fairness'. Got a big gripe there with any of them trying to reach out to the disadvantaged...BIG gripe!
So Happy, care to tell us all again how GREAT your stock portfolio is doing? BTW, are you white? And...
...have you decided yet which college you'll be buying your kid's way into? Or did that already happen for the Happy kids?
Posted by Lillian at 07/07/2007 @ 04:06am
....have you decided yet which college you'll be buying your kid's way into?
Posted by LILLIAN 07/07/2007 @ 04:06am
You don't know how to read....
Here's what I stated: "Neither myself nor my older son went to private Us!". I have a younger 11th grader son who will also NOT go to a private U!
As to whether I'm white, maybe yes, maybe no..........my read of your comments tells me you have pretty good `Professional Victim' mentality baked into your head and is a non-white...probably black. My wisdom to your race is to stand up and take control of your own behaviors and return to hardcore family values......4 decades of outside `help' has brought more ruins than the small numbers of successes......but those successes need to be emulated and not derided as `oreos'!
Lastly before going to a swim meet, since you asked......my sotcks are up 11%+ year-to-date! Making money in the financial markets do come fairly easy to me (not always, but since about the mid-90s', the `learning' kicked in)....sort of like you and your kinds complaining about how bad the USA is! Instead of `working' with what this great country provides in terms of opportunities, you spend chunks of your lives complaining how it could be bettered......LOL!!
Posted by Happy at 07/07/2007 @ 08:43am
ooooooo, pasty white outrage
you can't be happy
Posted by Will C. at 07/07/2007 @ 10:57am
ooooooo, pasty white outrage
you can't be happy
Posted by WILL C. 07/07/2007 @ 10:57am | ignore this person
Ah yes Will...turns out the REAL Happy...isn't!
Maybe it's because he didn't get enough wealth early on so that he and his first born (Grumpy?) could get out of that whole 'public education' thing. Or maybe it's becuase he just doesn't quite have enough cash yet to buy his next kid (Dopey?) into the 'good' schools.
And somehow, I just knew he'd focus the bulk of his response on both the race question and the matter of his wealth....
...and completely ignore the absolute hypocrisy of his position!
(and Happy's assumptions about my race were REALLY funny...best laugh I've had all day. They were so wrong...and so stupid...that they made ME...happy!)
Too bad about the puny arguement thing really, I was hoping we could delve into the matter of giving public funds (in the form of tax deductions) to those wealthy whites buying their kids' way into the elite schools with cash gifts, endowments, etc.
The smell from the hypocrisy of Happy's position going down in flames would have been quite appealing.
Posted by Lillian at 07/07/2007 @ 2:05pm
Hey Happy I really liked this one...
...y read of your comments tells me you have pretty good `Professional Victim' mentality baked into your head...
Posted by HAPPY 07/07/2007 @ 08:43am | ignore this person
Especially when juxtaposed with this one...
And, why selective colleges let folks who score lower on the SATs get in when lots of higher scorers are kept out? I hope you or your relatives are or will be in this `boat'....cause many folks' kids face this very issue, including mine!
Posted by HAPPY 07/06/2007 @ 5:38pm | ignore this person
LOL!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Posted by Lillian at 07/07/2007 @ 2:11pm
Getting back to the politics of fund raising for votes and the disconnect to the issues that affect voters, via commercials, MSM, vs actually governing effectively and the reason Al Gore has fallen out of love with politics and says he's not thinking of enterring the run. Considering Gore's continuously increasing poll numbers as a non-candidate, is there any reason why he should have to deal with that mess if he doesn't have to? I still do see a Gore/Clinton or Gore/Obama ticket, but if Gore can hold out and not deal with the fund raising and still poll second or third-- why not. Lastly, some state polls that have put Gore's name into the roll when they had not previously been polling with that posibility show him taking a quarter of Clinton's numbers and 5-10 percent of the others to come in 1st. Ver bizarre considering Gore is not campaigning or fund raising.
So it very well may be true that a thinking skillful person with progressive 'ideas', is more powerful than money. (or SAT scores)
Posted by hsuBfools at 07/07/2007 @ 2:52pm
The smell from the hypocrisy of Happy's position...
Posted by LILLIAN 07/07/2007 @ 2:05pm
What I smell from you lib losers is ENVY! Tough shit!
I am hypocritical? I believe Darwinism w/some accomodations for the truly unfortunates! Always have and always will! Money dominates politics and you birds get all twisted out-of-shape and thinks public financing is the solution? LOL!!!
Heard of First Amendment? You libs today are THE HYPOCRITS even though you seem to have the numbers but still, somehow, Rush, Hannity, Imus, Savage, et. al. need to be Fair Doctrined!
Where your activism for Muslim women's rights? Gay rights in Muslim land? Christian rights in Arab countries? Genocide of black Africans?
In all seriousness, shouldn't these take precedence over muzzling Rush or hold 300 hearings that lead to 14% approval of Congress? Am I cynical of the Dems/Libs, more than ever! YOU CAN'T EVEN END THE IRAQ WAR when it was/is the raging issue for 4 years! Don't point finger at us Conservatives until you take care of your ostensibly Job 1!
The Iraq War is a political prop for you, that's it!
Posted by Happy at 07/07/2007 @ 6:21pm
Oh, by the way, when I said my stock portfolio is up 11% year-to-date, I was off! It is actually up by close to 16% when the CASH portion is excluded. Yeah, I am now cash-heavy and don't quite know where to put them! Been selling more than buying all year.....Got any ideas??? Invest in the hot China market? Brazil?? Mexico?? I'm all ears!!
Posted by Happy at 07/07/2007 @ 6:25pm
wow the markets must really suck if happy can't find a place to put his cash.
he can't be happy
Posted by Will C. at 07/07/2007 @ 7:52pm
And somehow, I just knew he'd focus the bulk of his response on both the race question and the matter of his wealth....
Posted by LILLIAN 07/07/2007 @ 2:05pm
Well. He's got to talk about something other than being a cheep skate. I mean let's face it, public universities are supported by the tax dollars of the people. If there's any hypocrisy it's that happy isn't happy to pay taxes but very happy to gorge himself at the public trough.
He's really no different from any other hamster conservative that wants to live within the political boundaries of a tax funded super power and enjoy all its amenities, but not have to pay the taxes needed to make it all happen.
Posted by Will C. at 07/07/2007 @ 8:04pm
....not have to pay the taxes needed to make it all happen....
Posted by WILL C. 07/07/2007 @ 8:04pm
That is my dream....and unfortunately, it's just that! As much as I hate it, my taxes are, more often than not, wasted by your beloved Gov't to spread dependency across the land!
Posted by Happy at 07/07/2007 @ 8:57pm
That is my dream....and unfortunately, it's just that! As much as I hate it, my taxes are, more often than not, wasted by your beloved Gov't to spread dependency across the land!
Posted by HAPPY 07/07/2007 @ 8:57pm | ignore this person
Oh boo hoo. Sounds like Happy...isn't happy.
Not happy he has to pay taxes, certainly not happy those poor, disadvantaged kids get all the breaks over he and his, not happy his wingnut heros like Rush, and Hannity are sinking fast, not happy there was something called a 'fairness doctrine' (really...what self-respecting neocon could possible...fairness?!) for 40 years until the neocons kileed it...and now it might be finally coming back...
...and most of all, not at all happy that the liberals have ALREADY accomplished their 'job 1'...
...which was driving the neocon idiots out of Congress!!
BTW Happy, job 2 is driving the neocon idiots out of the White House. I'm guessing that will really make Happy...UN-happy!!
(heh, heh!)
Oh and Happy?...this...
Where your activism for Muslim women's rights? Gay rights in Muslim land? Christian rights in Arab countries? Genocide of black Africans?
...gave me ANOTHER really good laugh!!!
You see, liberals DO care about those things, but we're smart enough to understand that you neocons DON'T...
...so we're concentrating first on getting you people out of positions of power in out country...
...since it's you people who have been the biggest impediment to solving problems like that.
Posted by Lillian at 07/08/2007 @ 12:02am
wasted by your beloved Gov't to spread dependency across the land!
Posted by HAPPY 07/07/2007 @ 8:57pm
Cool, then I have a question that should make you really happy. If you hate being dependent on the goverment, why aren't you putting all that loose cash where you mouth is and sending your kids to a private university instead of a public university.
Posted by Will C. at 07/08/2007 @ 12:28am
job 2 is driving the neocon idiots out of the White House. I'm guessing that will really make Happy...UN-happy!!
Posted by LILLIAN 07/08/2007 @ 12:02am
As usual, you're wrong! The NeoCons stole the Reagan revolution and literally `conned' Bush into doing more than just simply depose Saddam! You haven't been around or read my writings long enough....I'm closer to Patrick Buchanan's camp when it comes to foreign meddling and having bases all over the world! Bush is responding to the Islamic threat correctly but overreached in Iraq.....Should have pulled out right after "Mission Accomplished" and let the Iraqis work on their future.
Whoever wins the WH in `08, will turn America inward and less meddlesome internationally....which is good and will indeed, make me HAPPY! America First and we don't need to be the World's policeman nor rescuer!
Like most libs, you lack the mental capacity to process complex matters! These blogs, ain't where the `heavy' stuffs are! It's entertainment!
Posted by Happy at 07/08/2007 @ 01:06am
I guess my question made you unhappy
Posted by Will C. at 07/08/2007 @ 11:00am
So Happy, as a 'paleocon', you'll be happy to see the neoons driven from the White House, huh? That's great...we'll all celebrate together!!!
But wait...when you say...
"Whoever wins the WH in `08, will turn America inward and less meddlesome internationally....which is good and will indeed, make me HAPPY!"
...you do understand that it is looking increasingly likely that the next occupant of the White House will be Hillary...or Barak...or even Al Gore, right? Don't forget they'll be wielding their newly minted 'unitary executive' powers...with the ability to declare anyone an 'enemy combatant' so they can make them dissappear if they don't keep their mouths shut...and the ability to extend a 'get-out-of-jail-free' card to anyone who does...and the ability to simply remove the prosecutorial arm of any AG who dares to even start an investigation.
Just asking 'cause it's funny, you claim you'll be 'happy' but all I've heard you say about those likely next inhabitants of the White House, is the standard 'neocon' talking point criticisms (or is it just a bizarre coincidence that they are identical to your standard 'paleocon' talking point criticisms?)
Anyway, it sure does look like, as with most of you cons (neo, paleo, or whatever variety) you completely "lack to mental capacity to process complex matters" like what happens next when you get your wish and the neocons in the White House are gone.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...man Happy....you really make me laugh!!!
Posted by Lillian at 07/08/2007 @ 7:08pm
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...man Happy....you really make me laugh!!!
Posted by LILLIAN 07/08/2007 @ 7:08pm
That's what I like to see! That's HAPPY for you! There's lot$ of me to $pread around! I do have to confe$$ though, a bad week on Wall $treet do tend$ to make me le$$ HAPPY! Onward, Christian soldiers, another week i$ about to $tart!
Posted by Happy at 07/09/2007 @ 12:49am
Oh, forgot to say, politics is easy but Wall St. is where I exercise my brains; though truth be told, Wall St. is also kinda easy....but harder than politics which caters mostly to imbeciles!
Posted by Happy at 07/09/2007 @ 12:52am
lot$ of you to $pread around?
are you a lard a$$?
Posted by Will C. at 07/09/2007 @ 12:58am
I Cant believe that they are even considering the Clinton Obama race as raising money because they have best ideas??? What ideas?? Senator Joe Biden challenged them to 90 debate on Iraq only 2 other candidates showed but no Hilary or Obama...The have the most money because they are bought out open your eyes America. Senator Biden is know for saying it how its is but why do you want lying snake for. Joe Biden in the senate since 72 was in the cival rights movement and is the chairman of the foreign relations committee let us not fall to the lies that this money driven media is feeding us.LETS PASS THE WORD ON JOE BIDEN...God bless America..
Posted by gruntlife at 07/09/2007 @ 03:08am