Lance
Sam James
Josh Adams
fooser
jslef
Terry Woods
Ryan
davenate
Mike O
gospelnous
bleport
halldg
jack3566
Reading on Walden Bookstore
Tyler D.
Hugo
JonHillary Clinton receives the largest number of military donations…from the Defense industry.
The ever famed ‘Military-Industrial Complex’ has picked their candidate of choice: Hillary Rodham Clinton. When Hillary takes office, do not be prepared to see an anti-war populist of any sort. She is as establishment as Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson, ready to declare war on Iran at a moment’s notice. The defense industry sees this and, I think, has made a good investment. Well, good if you’re a defense contractor. The Huffington Post reported:
The defense industry this year abandoned its decade-long commitment to the Republican Party, funneling the lion share of its contributions to Democratic presidential candidates, especially to Hillary Clinton who far out-paced all her competitors.
An examination of contributions of $500 or more, using the Huffington Post’s Fundrace website, shows that employees of the top five arms makers - Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop-Grumman, Raytheon and General Dynamics — gave Democratic presidential candidates $103,900, with only $86,800 going to Republicans.
Senator Clinton took in $52,600, more than half of the total going to all Democrats, and a figure equaling 60 percent of the sum going to the entire GOP field. Her closest competitor for defense industry money is former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney (R.), who raised $32,000.
Insofar as defense workers making political donations reflect the interests of their employers, the contributions clearly suggest that the arms industry has reach the conclusion that Democratic prospects for 2008 are very good indeed. Since their profits are so heavily dependent on government contracts, companies in this field want to be sure they do not have hostile relations with the White House.
The strong support for Clinton indicates that a majority of defense industry executives currently believe Clinton is a favorite to win the Democratic nomination and, in November, 2008, the general election.
In the 2004 presidential race, defense company workers, almost all of them upper-level employees, gave George W. Bush $819,358, more than twice the $366,870 received by John Kerry. Similarly, in House and Senate races over the past 10 years, the defense industry has favored Republicans over Democrats by a 3-2 margin.
Republicans holding public office almost always provide much stronger support for weapons programs and other Pentagon spending than do Democrats.
In an unexpected development, Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.), the ranking Republican on the Armed Services Committee and a decorated Vietnam War veteran, raised just $19,200, barely more than the $18,500 collected by Texas Representative Ron Paul (R.).
No other Democrat came near Clinton’s totals. Running second to her in the competition for Pentagon contractors’ cash was Senator Chris Dodd (D-Conn), who raised $13,200, almost all from executives of General Dynamics which has a major submarine building facility in Groton, Conn.
Former Senator John Edwards (D-N. Car.) raised $12,200 and Illinois Senator Barack Obama (D) took in $10,000.
Clinton’s major industry benefactors - donors who gave the $4,600 maximum allowed by law — include Roger A. Crone, Boeing’s president of Network and Space Systems; Stanley Roth, Boeing’s Vice President for Asia, International Relations, $4,600; Anne Sullivan, a Raytheon attorney; William Lynn, Raytheon’s Senior Vice President for Government Relations; and Michele Kang, Northrop Grumman Vice President for health science solutions.
Filed under: Democrats, Hillary Clinton, Iraq | Tagged: , clinton, democrats, hillary, industrial, military
There’s something seriously wrong with the way industry donates to candidates. - Eric Monse
I already knew I didn’t like Hillary, but now that I know she secretly supports war, I’m definitely going to make a point of informing all of my local Hillary supporters that she takes money from the people making the bombs and guns for the war in Iraq. So, effectually, Hillary Clinton has officially profited off of the Iraq War.
Surely this whole system is crazy - the amount of money poured into presidential elections could make a significant impact in New Orleans, on global poverty, or inner city poverty…
[...] because she’s getting so many campaign donations from so many defense contractors? The defense industry this year abandoned its decade-long [...]
[...] Oct 19th, 2007 by forsevengenerations Hillary Clinton receives the largest number of military donations…from the Defense industry. [...]
Just goes to show how limited our choices really are for our leaders.
A country full of people, and these are the kind of A$$HOLES we have standing up to lead us?
If your voting Democrat just to stand by your party, then you’re just as guilty as the republicans are.
PARTY DOES NOT MATTER. ARE WE NOT ALL AMERICANS?
Kentuckians have until Dec 31 to register republican so they can vote for Ron Paul in the GOP primary.
National Leadership is bigger than just red vs. blue, Us vs. Them mentality.
Ignore party lines. Vote for who you feel is right.
For me, that person is Ron Paul. If you don’t agree, I challenge you to tell me a good reason that you’ve researched yourself (ie. Not something Fox News told ya)
We cannot give “freedom and democracy” TM to the middle east. It is not something that can be given. It must be fought for and earned.
And apparently, due to the current state of politics in this country, it must be periodically RE-EARNED. Because here in america, we’ve lost it.
My forcast, Guliani vs Clinton, No Win Situation. Probably Clinton wins it (not that there will be any difference to their policy). Then WWIII, hell on earth, etc.
If anyone knows of a good cheap place to rent in switzerland, lemme know, k?
Jeff would you mind telling me what you don’t like about Hillary as a potential leader? I just finished doing a 9 page research paper over her for a poly-sci class in college, and I haven’t really found anything against her.
Party does matter btw. In case you haven’t noticed, there are specific policies people believe in, which is what separates the parties. For example, democrats tend to be pro-choice and pro-gay marriage (or legal partnerships with benefits).
We have to speak up as a people because the major news networks aren’t doing there jobs.
Support Truth:
Mike Gravel
Ron Paul
Dennis Kucinich
We can’t stop using our voice even if this greedy person gets elected by the ignorant masses
[...] also interesting that Hillary Clinton is receiving the majority of the contributions from people employed by defense companies like [...]
We need to get rid of ALL of the lobbyist’s abilities to make financial contributions. They absolutely CORRUPT politics and the politicians. These corporations are destroying our country.
[...] Galiën Although Congressman Ron Paul receives the most support from members of the US military, Senator Hillary Clinton is the most popular candidate among defense contractors. It appears that, for the first time in a long while, defense contractors have donated more money [...]
Hillary Clinton is not so much pro-war as pro-war-machine. I believe the situation is that industry insiders realize their entire racket is in jeopardy. Continued horrible leadership could draw scrutiny to America’s most horrible public policies. Few top our unilateral unopposed arms race — still being run at breakneck speed to the tune of hundreds of billions in expenditures every year.
Another Clinton Presidency would see half-hearted efforts to resolve fundamental social and economic problems. A little progress there, along with her polarization and endless distractions like small time pork spending, and it is thought that this entirely unproductive extension of Cold War procurement policies might continue unabated.
Also, as an aside to Craig — I really hope you didn’t get political science = “poly-sci” from your instructors. People with an aversion to phrases with many syllables might say “poli. sci.,” but the version you’ve created seems to imply you are a student of many sciences, rather than a student of political science. On top of all that, falling into the trap of embracing the “God, gays, and guns” clash is just like charging at the red cape instead of the toreador.
I can’t blame you for doing like almost everyone else in the nation (though based on your purported area of study, perhaps you do have an obligation to be more astute than average.) If you look beyond a small fringe of areas where genuine clash takes place, it is clear that there is broad bipartisan agreement on matters like perpetuating the consolidation of American wealth and maintaining extremely low American social minima. Running a one-nation arms race is also an area of agreement, but I imagine industry insiders feel their gigapork can only continue as long as the nation never becomes so upset with its leadership as to try and understand where the big money actually goes.
I am no fan of Hillary and glad to see the bashing, but you people really are being led by the nose here. The contributions were private, not corporate. Most of these companies are based on the west coast (liberal demographic) , i.e. Boeing in Seattle, and these are democrat voters supporting the most likely democrat nominee.
Wow, I can’t believe you folks are this ignorant, but then again, you are liberals. At any rate, please start thinking for yourselves, as an American, it is difficult for me to see my fellow citizens (even liberals) getting hustled by a moronic blog like this. Nuff said.
How could that possibly be “nuff said” when it is clearly so far from enough thought about this subject. Of course, we have plenty of dittohead nonsense to suggest that there was no thinking whatsoever involved — just sock puppet theater. Liberals are stupid, the West Coast is dominated by liberals, private donations are not the chief means by which corporations influence elections, etc. Actually one of those things is not like the other.
It is inexcusable that someone would speak out about politics without even thinking past such transparent silliness as talk radio anti-liberal hysteria, but it is understandable that someone might be duped by the “private contributions” argument. Campaign financing is an arcane area that has been undergoing wave after wave of counterproductive “reform” since 1971. As it stands today, large institutional contributions to individual candidates are illegal.
Corporations, labor unions, and churches have become dominant players (along with a handful of coherent interest groups like the AARP or NRA) because they alone have the means to motivate hundreds or even thousands of members into giving the maximum allowable contribution. The corporate model usually involves paying employees bonuses with the understanding that they will pass along most of the windfall to specific candidates, though in some cases salaries are large enough that a specific bonus to promote “civic responsibility” is unneeded.
Hillary Clinton is so enamored with the entire corrupt culture of the arms race that she even tries to preserve a role for nuclear weapons in dealing with terrorist threats. To dignify such warped thinking on the national stage would be abominable regardless of the voice. Coming from one who hopes to run with the support of liberal thinkers, it is even worse. The only explanation for her broad support of the arms race would be that she considers this sort of support crucial to her own political victories.
The scary thing is, when Sen. Obama points out that conventional weapons can neutralize every conceivable terrorist facility that might be subject to nuclear attack — all without the plume of radioactive fallout spreading with the wind or reducing the surrounding countryside to a radioactive wasteland — he gets dinged for being inexperienced and she gets support for her purported wisdom. It is hard to even imagine what this nation could accomplish by not purchasing do-nothing weapons systems with 12-figure price tags from these very companies. Be it a balanced budget with much lower taxes or expanded social services to dramatically improve public health and retirement security, we are not likely to find out as long as we continue to emphasize entirely useless priorities like a next generation air superiority fighter (when no other nation is anywhere near mounting a challenge to the present fleet) or a missile defense shield (that interestingly enough has virtually no capability to actually defend against missiles.)
Editor, thank you for being awake while the mainstream media is still asleep. I think it is obvious who Hillary is and what she stands for, but I am surrounded by people who are brainwashed by media spin. I posted a link to your post and a quote.
“The corporate model usually involves paying employees bonuses with the understanding that they will pass along most of the windfall to specific candidates…”
Wow, I never heard anything even remotely like that, and I worked for companies with a large defense clientel all my life. But I don’t think Ray Robison has a correct fix on this either. Engineers and managers tend to be more Republican and conservative than the general population.
I don’t think Lance draws the right conclusion either. Most folks I know in the industry don’t think, “I have to vote for X to make sure I have a job next year.” They realize the connection is too tenuous, their individual vote too unimportant, etc. No, they vote their political convictions just like everyone else does. They just like Hillary for some odd reason…
PaulB has it close, but just misses it. These are left coast scientists and engineers. That is a far different strand then the ones I work with in the south. These are simply dems supporting the dem candidate, and BTW, here is news for you folks, 9/11 was not an inside job - news for you conspiracy minded nutjobs.
Some silly sod is trying to claim that these private donations are really funded by the corporation and they expect the individuals to give to the designated candidates. That is the obvious opinion of someone who never held a job beyond slinging burgers and has no idea of what he talks about. The data used here is gathered from private donations and the private donor may or may not identify employer. The contribution itself has nothing to do with the company. Again, I am more than willing to let the far left fring bash Hillary, but at some point this country needs to stand up to extreme disinformation like this just for the sake of honesty. Now continue eating your own…be my guest nutjobs. I am voting for Fred and you are helping me by lying about your own politcians.
It is funny to see people care so deeply about what jobs people claim to have online. If such care were dedicated to actually -thinking- about the substance of remarks, I believe we would see much less nonsense coming from the job-obsessed sort.
What I’ve written about campaign finance isn’t some nutty theory — it is the law of the land. It is true that free speech still protects groups like moveon.org or the ironically-named Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. They can take any sum from any individual or institution as long as they don’t get caught coordinating activities with any candidate’s official campaign organization. However, the campaigns themselves can only draw on institutional support through exactly the kind of behavior the Huffington Post describes.
As an aside for anyone out there who is capable of political thought, if Ray’s bizarre assertions had any merit, why would this be a remarkable change? Wouldn’t it stand to reason that previous Democrats would also get the same flow of support he is so confident is merely a function of “left coast” politics?
If one rabid dittohead can’t get a grip on how the FEC polices campaign finance, so be it. Likewise, if there is an engineer who has never been invited into the political boys’ club at his firm, that should be no shocker to readers. However, the system works as I’ve described, and it can only be changed by federal government action — not a wall of denial from a know-nothing ideolog.
Demonweed,
“Bizarre assertions”? Wow, I mean just…wow
I state that these are predominately democratic private donors making private contributions to their party’s leading candidate.
You state that it is some corporate conspiracy giving corporate dollars to employees somehow twisting their arms to force these predominately left coast professionals to give to a Democrat.
And my argument is bizarre? Just….wow
If you don’t see the problem with your argument. It is really not worth wasting my time.
However, just for fun, I am curious, do you think 9/11 was an inside job?
It is no conspiracy. It is how campaigns are financed. I realize it may be far beyond your abilities (or more likely just a threat to a passionately-held identity as a political conservative) to educate yourself about how the process works. Though the pressure to conform can be powerful, it is nothing like “arm-twisting.” In fact, the consequences of not getting with the political program in a corporate campaign finance push usually amount to nothing more than a weakening of social ties in the office. Yet anyone who has done work in the real world should well understand the upside-down priorities most businesses place on “who you know” vs. “what you produce.”
Also, I don’t know how you sustain the connection between 9/11 conspiracy theories and being informed about Presidential campaign finance practices. I guess it is just another display of ideological bigotry — anyone who disagrees with anything you say must be an idiot because your “liberals are evil” vitriol is the alpha and omega of political thought.
I know that the attacks were conducted by mostly Saudi terrorists operating under the direction of an organization that was, at the time, operating out of Afghanistan. In no way did this justify the invasion of Iraq, but it also does not justify trying to pin the whole thing on Bush Incorporated or Zionists or whatever else might be percolating in Ray’s mind. After all, the sitting administration is guilty of plenty of actual abominations — there is no need to embellish the extent of their misdeeds. Also, it is generally a bad idea to misdirect blame when the original Al Qaeada is still going strong and now has countless Iraqi widowers and orphans to make recruiting fighters much easier over there than it has become over here.
[...] and Space Systems; Stanley Roth, Boeings Vice President for Asia, International Relations”. . Tags: Clinton, democrats, hillary, Hillary Clinton, pestaola, [...]
Let me summarize the extent of attempted reasoning engaged in by people like Ray. I submit that they spend more time constructing their ideology by building it on the steady diet of demagogues like Bill Oreilly, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity that they consume than any other intellectual pursuit.
Their purpose, is to ridicule every argument critical of their team playing government expanding neo-republicans because it suits their “teams” serial self interests. Any criticism of their pet establishment candidates is met with accusations of conspiratorial thinking and the oft thrown about accusation of “being unpatriotic.” Any appeal to the reinstitution of the fundamental principles of the republic (constitutional adherence) is dismissed as unrealistic in this political climate, and discarded as soon as the ultimate goal is reached, winning the match and selling the country out to their state-capitalist (or communist more accurately) power structures.
Sad thing about Ray is, even if he’s purporting to be anti-Hilary he’s most likely going to get the same government he’d get under Giuliani with her so he might as well get the free health care.
Read Hillary’s voting records and make your own decision: http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=55463.
On re-reading that article, it appears there is more here than first meets the eye (with a proviso however). Note this sentence:
“In the 2004 presidential race, defense company workers, almost all of them upper-level employees, gave George W. Bush $819,358, more than twice the $366,870 received by John Kerry.”
If (here’s the proviso) they are comparing the same company employees from 2004 to today, then there is an obvious shift that is not accounted for merely by most of these companies being “left coast”. Unfortunately the article does not say if this is the case, so I still am left wondering.
Also this is comparing the 2004 general election to today’s primary, another problem. And Hillary is without much doubt the nominee for the D’s, while the field is open for the R’s - just the sort of thing that might draw more money for Hillary. Finally a perception that this is going to be a Democratic year normally would shift the money some. People like to pick the winning side…
On the other thing, that the companies somehow direct the contributions of their employees, that is just nuts. Just doesn’t happen, folks. At most, the upper levels may discuss privately which candidate will benefit their company most and perhaps come to some consensus about that, but the contributions are still being made independently. At the level of engineer, there simply is no pressure from above, nor probably much contribution based on company prospects.
the absolute truth
I am not spamming
Hillary Clinton is a major reason why I am fed up with the Dems and have recently left the party:
http://www.ronpaulnewengland.com/index.php/why-i-quit-the-democratic-party
While I am a Ron Paul supporter, I sincerely hope she doesn’t get the nomination–she is the worst possible candidate other than maybe Giuliani.
[...] read more | digg story Posted in Uncategorized | [...]
SEN. HILLARY’S STRANGE LOVE: How she Learned TO LOVE THE BOMB
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAyrvbD3NTE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tLn2T2vL-E
Hillary Clinton, a wishy-washy Pseudo-Republican who masquerades around Washington as a Democrat,learns to Stop worrying about Bill and starts LOVING the BOMB. Loving the Bomb for a war with IRAN.
“ALL OPTIONS ARE LEFT ON THE TABLE WITH RESPECT TO IRAN”= CODE FOR NUCLEAR WEAPONS STRIKE
STOP THE BOMB- http://www.gravel2008.us
[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAyrvbD3NTE&rel=1]
[...] Lance placed an interesting blog post on Hillary Clinton receives the largest number of military donations …Here’s a brief overview [...]
Not sure who’s side I’m taking here. But I do have to ask the guys that don’t believe there is a conspiracy, among the defense contractors, to have a certain person elected; Why not?
Saying that b/c these contractors tend to live on the west coast that they’re going to vote liberal says nothing. They’ve always lived here. And as the article stated, during the last election, they gave the most to Bush and Co. Why such a dramatic shift? And for the record, my state, California, isn’t so wacky left wing. The state votes app 52% Dem and 48% Rep. That’s not some huge, sweeping margin in favor of one or the other. As a matter of fact, the entire country, BIZARRELY, is split right down the middle. It makes no sense. It seems like most other countries are pretty decided in how they live their lives. We seem to be in this constant state of flux. I’ve asked many state politicians, face-to-face, about this. None of them have an answer.
Black helicopters, moonbats, tin foil hats, yada yada. Why is it so hard to believe that people conspire? The words ‘conspiracy theory’ have been trained into people to believe ‘whack jobs, ufo, david icke’. But there is also a very real non-whack job, non-ufo conspiracy theory… You guys, those of you who do, have to get over your prejudice of those words. You have to undo what’s been hammered into you… It’s not so hard to believe that Bush & Co. conspired (read: made secret plans) to get us into Iraq. One piece of flaky info, that, as we all know, turned out to be crap, was supposedly enough to launch a full-on invasion of another country??? If you guys really buy that… beach-front property… igloo…
Why then, is it so hard to fathom that all the defense contractor guys didn’t get together, during a nice round of golf, and say, “Who’s next in line?”
I’m not sure of the mechanisms, be they special bonuses or peer pressure, but I’m sure that they are supporting her, not b/c of their or her party affiliation, but out of the need for their continued revenue.
That’s just business. And if you can’t understand the conspiring that goes on, in business, then I’m sure you think Microsoft is just one, big lovable company that got where it did b/c it makes better software than anyone else. Oh and I’ve got more of that beach-front property and an igloo stashed, somewhere, out back -under heavy guard of my moonbats and David Icke lizard people. So don’t get any ideas.
PS. RON PAUL 08′
[...] Robodon was right…. Hillary Clinton receives the largest number of military donationsfrom the Defense industry. Posted on October 19, 2007 by Lance Ads by GoogleBuy a Hillary Nutcracker Hilary’s a Nut Cracker [...]
I would like to see a continuation of the topic
Another conspiracy for you - Newcomer to the yearly Bilderberger Conference = Senator Clinton.
Karl Rove had an interesting argument we should stop calling her Hillary because it detracts from the fact that she has a Senate Job of voting and she has terrible votes if your a Democrat who is against war.
From now on, I call her Senator Clinton. Hillary is too endearing in my opinion.
[...] CLICK HERE TO READ LINK [...]
[...] I have a lot of time for this guy. And he ain’t in the pocket of big business, like some people. [...]
HILLARY IN THE NEW HAMPSHIRE CAUCUS BATTLE —
Neo-Lib Hillary is desperately supported by New Hampshire’s Neo-Lib propaganda news media and her cult worshippers; but most Jake Kennedy conservatives are not fools. Hillary’ support for child sacrifice by abortion, amnesty for illegal aliens, the start of Iraq War on behalf of Israel; her lying and cheating during the debates, her years of governmental experience with her notoriously husband, her failed health care plan, and the Hsu scandal resulted in her just burning at stake by the Iowa People.
An ever increasing number of the American People, now up to 50%, are coming to realize they have been scammed by her cunning pretentious shows, as the Neo-Lib puppet of Mark Penn. At the debate, in front of the World, her attempts at projecting an image of superior intelligence and benevolent temperament seemed pretentious, because of her evasiveness and fleeting expressions of fear and loathing.
Google: “Sticherz Why the Democrats are Blue”; Harris Interactive Hillary support”; and, “Who Would the World Elect”.
Child sacrifice by abortion? Are you kidding? That’s an eyebrow raiser. What about ‘human sacrifice’ by death penalty? I don’t see the ‘compassionate’ moral conservatives following church doctrine and calling for an end to it. Anyone who waves around in front of a cross during their campaign is just trying to ’scam’ you.
And what does this have to do with the New Hampshire primary or defense contractors?
Also, using “Neo-Lib” twice in the same sentence is a new low. :P
[...] January 14, 2008 · No Comments Hillary Clinton receives the largest number of military [...]
[...] faction of her party. She is also a solid friend of the military. In fact she has received the most donations from key military industrial companies than any candidate from either party. Top military personnel who have met with her for any length [...]
You gotta love it. - Eric Monse
To me, it all comes down to the vote on H.J.Res. 114.
A most troubling vote - and still unsatisfactorily explained position on the part of Hillary Clinton, despite all the flip-flopping and the crafty attempt at obfuscation:
http://tom-bombadil.blogspot.com/2008/01/hjres-114-why-did-they-do-it.html
H.J.Res. 114 - Why did they do it?
I hope that the defense industry (accounting for 25% of Hillary’s contributions) and the health care industry (accounting for another 38%) choose cattle farmers or horse rancher as their voices to Hillary because they will have their hands up to their shoulders in her a$$ controlling her like the private industry puppet that she is. Hillary is an evil bi**h, god forbid that she win this election, but if she does I am moving my family to Canada and applying for citizenship.
[...] investments is laughing all the way to the bank. This should be illegal. Instead, it is routine. Just another indication that we’ve slipped into a Bizarro World alternate universe, where laws and [...]
Not even $60,000 and that’s enough to buy a self-righteous politician? Wow.
[...] this stupid? To be played like puppets on a string? Hillary receives the most money from the military industrial complex of any Presidential candidate. Shouldn’t she rebuke these contributions? Since I’m a [...]
[...] read more | digg story [...]