Camelot 2 Discussion

From a friend who’s been with me since the bulletin board wars of 2000, and who took exception to Brent Budowsky’s analysis of what the recent change in political money flow means to progressives ("Camelot 2 Is Coming: K Street Money Moves")

Hi Caro,

I had to ask myself, "Is this guy Brent Budowsky serious when he says corporate money will buy a second 'Camelot' for us all?"

So I googled him and this was the first thing I found.......

I am a mainstream Democrat who worked at the epicenter of the loyal opposition for much of the Reagan presidency. I now believe that Ronald Reagan will go down in history as a great president of Mount Rushmore-quality historic achievement. [Link]

So I guess he really is serious in thinking that corporate money has finally seen the light of goodness and will soon bestow happines upon us all -- but first through bribing and hiring as many Democrats as possible before they tentatively take power next year and after.

Gimme a break. Do you actually believe such bullshit from a NeoDem shill for the corporatocracy? Putting it at the top of your web page and encouraging people to read more of it certainly would seem to indicate so.

Call me disappointed and disillusioned.

My response

Brent describes himself as a moderate, but he's not a "New Democrat".  He doesn't like From and that bunch any more than you or I.  Brent believes Ronald Reagan had a lot to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union, and that Reagan should be lauded for that.  Brent was an insider in Congress at the time, and I have to concede that he knows more about Reagan's role in the collapse than I do.  But he also said, I think in the article you mention, that he disagreed with Ronald Reagan on many, many issues.

What we need to realize, Guy, is that we're not going to agree with every person on every issue.  We have to get back to the ability to work with people on issues where we agree with them and not work with them on issues where we disagree, but without disrespecting them because our opinions differ.  Otherwise, we're no better than the right wingers.

The corporate money is following the power.  I'll take that for now, and in the meantime I'll try to convince corporate leaders that supporting truthful media and legislation that benefits the greatest number of people is what's really best in the long run, even for them and their corporations.

Caro

Brent Budowsky’s response

[I]f you Google below the first story you will find that I was one of a handful of senior Democrats here who opposed the Iraq war from the beginning.  Almost every one of those you would call true liberals supported it, and when I tried to talk to them, were not even open to discussion.  And I could go on and on.

But understand exactly what I am saying in the Camelot 2 piece.  I did not say that corporate money would buy a second Camelot.  I am not one of the those Democratic consultants who take lobbying money to represent oil companies or polluters, in fact I am neither a lobbyist nor political consultant.

What I am saying, is that because we have lived in a one party state, money has been locked out of almost everything progressive, and quite honestly, progressive large donors have far less commitment to their cause than conservative donors have to theirs. Almost all Democratic progressive donors give the real money to insiders while virtually zero money has gone to where the real progressive community is.

So progressive news sites, progressive activist sites, progressive cause related groups are starving for money, while money goes to the same "liberal" lobbyists and consultants who were telling "liberal" congressman to support the Iraq war.....then telling their oil company and chemical company and other clients how they "delivered" liberals to support the war.

The issue is not that these companies will ever give to progressives, they wont, and the issue is not that progressive groups will get funding from K Street....what I wrote, what I believe, and what is true is that as the politics and mood of the nation changes it will unlock major money from major places that will fund more enlightened ventures....and that there will come a time when people come to Washington again to have impact in positive ways and not call each other traitors and push tax loopholes and sweetheart deals...

When I referred to Mark Cuban funding Dan Rather, or movie studios greenlighting Clooney to make a movie about Murrow, or Al Gore who I have supported making an environmental documentary, that is all part of the same pattern and trend that is accelerating.....that is the point I am making and if you google below the Reagan piece you will find twenty other entries that lay out what I've been doing....

As for Reagan, absolutely, totally, I stand by every word I wrote.  There were many many things I opposed about Reagan, and if you want to do some serious googling, you will see that when Reagan met with Gorbachev virtually every right winger from Jesse Helms to Perle, George Will, and the rest said he was a dupe of communists....

You don’t have to agree, but I am out here in the trenches drumming up support for where the real change will come from, while the people you would undoubtedly cheer and applaud as the true blue true liberal purists are almost all trying to figure out whether to apologize for their many years of support for the Iraq war, while a guy like me, who does not meet the purity test, told them from 2002 onward it was the wrong war, and wrong for them to support it....

Brent Budowsky