conservatives v. socialists..........

[Andy]

I know why we don't. It's because the employers who pay for political campaigns like the cheap labor, pure and simple.

Don't you see an inconsistency in the above?

No, not even sure what you are referring to.

Yeah, I suppose that could be true that all the states along the boarder, liberal as they are, are being paid off to not do what is federally mandated... But then, the states along the boarder are the ones complaining the most about illegals. So that to me is where the inconsistency is.

But this also is a normal Liberal tactic. Liberal policies never work, so they immediately blame others and demand someone else fix the issue they caused. They get over run with illegals while refusing to put up the fence, then claim the federal government must do something about it. Just like CA put in price controls on electricity, end up with rolling black outs over the state, and claim the federal government should fix it.

If the "liberals" hate everyone in general, do they not hate the illegals?

You think of hate on a policy level. As in, if they pass a policy that may benefit them, then they must like them. Not so. Liberals pass group specific policy in order to gain votes and possibly cash.

For example Al Bore in the 90s passed legislation to sell drilling rights to federal land to an oil company. Was it because they like oil companies? No, it was because Al Bore had $500 thousand in company stock, which jumped in price after this.

For example Robert Byrd who was a KKK grand whatever member, now passing a bunch of pro-black bills. Why because he suddenly loves black people after hanging them? No, because he like them voting for him.

It's like the Crusader Artillery program, in which a number of Senators supported it. Then the bill was amended to move the state in which it would be built, and suddenly, they were completely against the program. Not in my state? Not voting for it now.

In other words it is more to do with personal benefit, than because they actually like immigrants. Most of these people wouldn't be caught dead with an average Jeo American, let alone a foreign person.

Plus you're mixing up issues, as do most people who see politics as a one dimensional left to right continuum. What, for example, does big government have to do with the illegal immigration problem?

Well, to begin with, I was responding in general. Perhaps I'm confused by the title of the thread "conservatives v. socialists" and I was simply highlighting the general tendencies between the two.

That said, I would suggest that the two issues are indirectly connected. Can you think of some ways a immigration problem would be a benefit to those in favor of Big Government? I can. In fact there are dozens of social issues caused by illegal immigration, which is the whole reason it's being debated. And Liberals, love social problems. It's where they gain their power. It's how they get support. "Yes we can!" can what? fix this? fix that? repair all the problems? Problems and issues are how all liberals get elected. "Vote for me, I'll fix this!"

Conservatives, that is to say, real limited government fiscal responsibility support the tenth amendment types, are an endangered species in Washington, that's for sure. It seems to me, though that both "liberals", meaning people favoring a strong central government, and "conservatives", meaning what you just described, would still want the federal government to fulfill their Constitutional mandate to protect the sovereignty of the nation. This is not a liberal/conservative issue, unless you bend the definition of those terms.

Well this is where we will no doubt disagree, but I actually believe most true liberals do not want to protect the sovereignty of the nation. When the topic of waterboarding came up, what was the first response almost universally? "It violates the U.N. resolution". Huh? Since when do we care what the U.N. says? Are we a Sovereign nation or not? In fact, wasn't it Captain Underpants who signed a bill allowing the "international court" to press charges on US citizens? Are we a Sovereign nation or not?

In fact Liberals as far back as FDR have constantly undermined protection of the nation. FDR was repeatedly warned that Alger Hiss was a Soviet spy. Not only did FDR dismiss it, but he promoted Hiss many times in the State Department. Even after it hit the newspapers, Alger Hiss was removed only to be promoted in the IMF.

And not so distant, the 1992 twin towers bombing. Captain Underpants was told many times by top advisors, we need to get the source, not just the runt doing the dirty work. We need to find the people who set this up! Over and over the alarm was sounded... yet how was it handled? Like a bank robbery. Let's press charges against him for doing "X" and sentence him to jail, case closed. After 10 years of terrorist attacks, Bush finely started to deal with the issue and he's getting all the flack.

So no, protection of the nation, in my view, is clearly a non-liberal issue.

 

[PLC1]

No, not even sure what you are referring to.

Yeah, I suppose that could be true that all the states along the boarder, liberal as they are, are being paid off to not do what is federally mandated... But then, the states along the boarder are the ones complaining the most about illegals. So that to me is where the inconsistency is.

But this also is a normal Liberal tactic. Liberal policies never work, so they immediately blame others and demand someone else fix the issue they caused. They get over run with illegals while refusing to put up the fence, then claim the federal government must do something about it. Just like CA put in price controls on electricity, end up with rolling black outs over the state, and claim the federal government should fix it.



You think of hate on a policy level. As in, if they pass a policy that may benefit them, then they must like them. Not so. Liberals pass group specific policy in order to gain votes and possibly cash.

For example Al Bore in the 90s passed legislation to sell drilling rights to federal land to an oil company. Was it because they like oil companies? No, it was because Al Bore had $500 thousand in company stock, which jumped in price after this.

For example Robert Byrd who was a KKK grand whatever member, now passing a bunch of pro-black bills. Why because he suddenly loves black people after hanging them? No, because he like them voting for him.

It's like the Crusader Artillery program, in which a number of Senators supported it. Then the bill was amended to move the state in which it would be built, and suddenly, they were completely against the program. Not in my state? Not voting for it now.

In other words it is more to do with personal benefit, than because they actually like immigrants. Most of these people wouldn't be caught dead with an average Jeo American, let alone a foreign person.



Well, to begin with, I was responding in general. Perhaps I'm confused by the title of the thread "conservatives v. socialists" and I was simply highlighting the general tendencies between the two.

That said, I would suggest that the two issues are indirectly connected. Can you think of some ways a immigration problem would be a benefit to those in favor of Big Government? I can. In fact there are dozens of social issues caused by illegal immigration, which is the whole reason it's being debated. And Liberals, love social problems. It's where they gain their power. It's how they get support. "Yes we can!" can what? fix this? fix that? repair all the problems? Problems and issues are how all liberals get elected. "Vote for me, I'll fix this!"



Well this is where we will no doubt disagree, but I actually believe most true liberals do not want to protect the sovereignty of the nation. When the topic of waterboarding came up, what was the first response almost universally? "It violates the U.N. resolution". Huh? Since when do we care what the U.N. says? Are we a Sovereign nation or not? In fact, wasn't it Captain Underpants who signed a bill allowing the "international court" to press charges on US citizens? Are we a Sovereign nation or not?

In fact Liberals as far back as FDR have constantly undermined protection of the nation. FDR was repeatedly warned that Alger Hiss was a Soviet spy. Not only did FDR dismiss it, but he promoted Hiss many times in the State Department. Even after it hit the newspapers, Alger Hiss was removed only to be promoted in the IMF.

And not so distant, the 1992 twin towers bombing. Captain Underpants was told many times by top advisors, we need to get the source, not just the runt doing the dirty work. We need to find the people who set this up! Over and over the alarm was sounded... yet how was it handled? Like a bank robbery. Let's press charges against him for doing "X" and sentence him to jail, case closed. After 10 years of terrorist attacks, Bush finely started to deal with the issue and he's getting all the flack.

So no, protection of the nation, in my view, is clearly a non-liberal issue.

The inconsistency to which I was referring was this:

Liberals tend to believe in a large expansive government that will, in their minds, fix all the issues facing America. Conservatives... what few their are, believe in the Constitution and believe that the people themselves hold the answer to most issues in the free market.

If "liberals" are people who see a large expansive government as fixing problems in the world, which is the best definition of the term you've given so far and on which we agree, then why don't they want the government to fix the problem of illegal immigration? You did explain your view on that issue further down, saying that these "liberals" like social problems that can then be fixed by big government, or words to that effect.

I still believe that illegal immigration has been allowed to continue by both parties not because the parties have become more "liberal", i.e., big government statist (which they have, no doubt about it), but because the employers of illegals are donors to political campaigns. The government is, in the final analysis, run by money and not by ideology.


There are plenty of social problems to fix, of course, and the more we try to use government to fix those problems, the more problems there will be. The liberals don't have to create problems by encouraging illegal immigration. Witness the war on poverty and the war on drugs as great examples of the government trying to fix social problems and making them worse.

As for this:

And not so distant, the 1992 twin towers bombing. Captain Underpants was told many times by top advisors, we need to get the source, not just the runt doing the dirty work. We need to find the people who set this up! Over and over the alarm was sounded... yet how was it handled? Like a bank robbery. Let's press charges against him for doing "X" and sentence him to jail, case closed. After 10 years of terrorist attacks, Bush finely started to deal with the issue and he's getting all the flack.

So no, protection of the nation, in my view, is clearly a non-liberal issue.

Going into Iraq was not "getting to the source", as Iraq was not the source of the terrorist attacks. Going into Iraq was the result of the thinking of the PNAC, which is yet another big government solving problems kind of organization in the final analysis, only applied to the world's problems rather than domestic ones.

FDR was by most definitions a liberal. He certainly did increase the size and power of the federal government. How do you think he did in the protection of the nation department? Would we have been better protected under Hoover?

 

[Andy]

If "liberals" are people who see a large expansive government as fixing problems in the world, which is the best definition of the term you've given so far and on which we agree, then why don't they want the government to fix the problem of illegal immigration? You did explain your view on that issue further down, saying that these "liberals" like social problems that can then be fixed by big government, or words to that effect.

I still believe that illegal immigration has been allowed to continue by both parties not because the parties have become more "liberal", i.e., big government statist (which they have, no doubt about it), but because the employers of illegals are donors to political campaigns. The government is, in the final analysis, run by money and not by ideology.

Well... like I said maybe... Here's my point: This issue... is fixed. The 80s federal mandated fence was made law. By law, the states must put a fence along the boarder. With that in mind, it's up to the states to do it.

Now, is it possible that local business funding state level politicians are lobbing for an open boarder? Sure. I think it's a bit off to think that major corporations are hiring illegals and spending billions on lobbing for open boarders. I have yet to see any evidence of that at all. Most of the big corps deal with Unions and Unions would be screaming and howling if they were hiring illegals.

Most of the business that higher illegals that I know of (and I can only tell you about the ones around here I know of) are small local mom and pop shops. They don't have money to be lobbing congress.

I also think it's a bit of a cop out to start talking about Big Business political money. The reason is, there are many politicians who don't change their views on a lobbyist whim. For example, when Enron came to Bush and asked for help with their finances, Bush told them thanks for their time, have a nice day.

Going into Iraq was not "getting to the source", as Iraq was not the source of the terrorist attacks. Going into Iraq was the result of the thinking of the PNAC, which is yet another big government solving problems kind of organization in the final analysis, only applied to the world's problems rather than domestic ones.

Well this might be one area we will have to agree to disagree. I believe that there was overwhelming evidence that Iraq supported terrorism, that they skirted the conditions of their surrender, that they planned to gain nuclear arms, that they planned to get working connections with Al Quida, and that they sheltered known terrorist. The evidence of these things is more than convincing. That's why most of the key democraps supported the invasion of Iraq, prior to Bush ever being elected, let alone 9/11.

They are against it now for purely political reasons alone.

FDR was by most definitions a liberal. He certainly did increase the size and power of the federal government. How do you think he did in the protection of the nation department? Would we have been better protected under Hoover?

I could not say specifically who would have done a better job since I don't know where the various politicians at the time stood on the issues. However, I can say that we would most certainly been better off with someone who had an understanding of our enemy, and who took very seriously intelligence department warnings about spies. For one thing, if FDR had taken seriously the reports of spies in the Manhatten project, perhaps the Rosenburgs could have been weeded out before giving the plans for the nuclear bomb to Stalin. 40 years of hiding from a nuclear attack with people building bomb shelters, and kids practicing for ICBM strikes could have been avoided.

 

[PLC1]

Now, is it possible that local business funding state level politicians are lobbing for an open boarder? Sure. I think it's a bit off to think that major corporations are hiring illegals and spending billions on lobbing for open boarders. I have yet to see any evidence of that at all. Most of the big corps deal with Unions and Unions would be screaming and howling if they were hiring illegals.

Most of the business that higher illegals that I know of (and I can only tell you about the ones around here I know of) are small local mom and pop shops. They don't have money to be lobbing congress.

It is the responsibility of the federal government to protect the sovereignty of the county, not to pass laws requiring the states to do so. Let them fulfill their responsibilities, and quit trying to take on what is clearly state responsibilities, such as education for example.

I don't see any evidence that the employers of illegals are solely or even mainly small businesses.

 

[Jeugenen]

MEXICAN ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION REFORM, ECONOMICS, AND TYRANNY

It is very economically advantageous to use cheap Mexican seasonal agricultural guest workers; it is very socially and economically disadvantageous to let them stay after the crop is harvested.

When seasonal guest workers do return to Mexico at end of the growing season, they return with money and experience, to contribute to the development of Mexico; and each year, when a new group of seasonal guest workers comes, they are eager to work for the same low non-citizen wages.

And, when they return to Mexico at end of the growing season, they do not drive down the wages of American workers, by competing for jobs in landscaping, construction, sanitation, and housekeeping; and they do not use American governmental social services.

Mexico is land rich in natural resources; what makes it so socially and economically poor are its Mexican People; and wherever they immigrate they bring their deplorable civilization with them. It is so inferior than none of them want to return to it.

The Mexican dream of regaining political control over Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California is America’s worst nightmare. Starting at all of the border towns, and spreading northward throughout America, like cancers, are thousands of deplorable Mexican neighborhoods.

America is presently occupied by 12-15 million Mexicans. With the deportation of all the illegal immigrants, students will again be able to get good paying summer jobs, to learn responsibility and earn their way through college; blue-collar wages will rise; border towns will not be slums; Spanish will not be a second language; crime will go down; hospitals and prisons will not be overcrowded; and, voter fraud will be over.

When seasonal guest workers come from all of the countries of Latin America, on a strict quota system, then every country benefits, not Mexico exclusively; and when they are well treated, the experience is mutually positive.

When all of the illegal aliens are deported, the Neo-Lib Democrats and Neo-Con Republicans will lose millions of political supporters, and the vast donations that they receive from the Mexican Lobby; and, those American businesses that exploit cheap Mexican labor will lose their illegal competitive advantages.

No rich superior civilization in the World can coexist side by side with a poor inferior civilization, without a great wall or fence, strict guest labor laws, armed border guards, and fines for hiring illegal aliens.

Those tyrannical elected Republican and Democrat leaders who serve the crooked exploitive labor lobbies, such Samuel Johnson in Texas and Nancy Pelosi in California, notoriously supporting amnesty, hindering the enforcement of immigration laws and enactment of immigration reforms, in defiance of the majority will of the American People, shall be punished for their imposition of tyrannical government.

 

[PLC1]

Those tyrannical elected Republican and Democrat leaders who serve the crooked exploitive labor lobbies, such Samuel Johnson in Texas and Nancy Pelosi in California, notoriously supporting amnesty, hindering the enforcement of immigration laws and enactment of immigration reforms, in defiance of the majority will of the American People, shall be punished for their imposition of tyrannical government.

Just who do you think is going to punish them?

The voters are pretty much ready to vote for "their" party, whichever one that is, or base their votes on the content of misleading TV advertising. Even if they were ready to wake up and smell the tequila, there aren't many competing candidates who would put an end to illegal immigration anyway.

 

[Andy]

It is the responsibility of the federal government to protect the sovereignty of the county, not to pass laws requiring the states to do so. Let them fulfill their responsibilities, and quit trying to take on what is clearly state responsibilities, such as education for example.

Sounds great to me. I'll vote for that.

I don't see any evidence that the employers of illegals are solely or even mainly small businesses.

Great... do tell, what evidence do you have? Not saying I disagree or agree. I you have something for me to see, let me see it. I'm just saying the illegals that I know of, and I know of quite a few, small businesses is where I have found them.

 

[PLC1]

Sounds great to me. I'll vote for that.

OMG! Andy agreed with me! I guess that must explain this:

http://img384.imageshack.us/img384/7373/frozenpx4.jpg

Great... do tell, what evidence do you have? Not saying I disagree or agree. I you have something for me to see, let me see it. I'm just saying the illegals that I know of, and I know of quite a few, small businesses is where I have found them.

There is no real evidence that big employers are lobbying for the government to be lax on illegal immigration other than my somewhat cynical appraisal of the way government usually works, along with the fact that the federal government has not addressed the issue in several decades. I'm not sure just how we'd prove the matter one way or the other.

 

[Federal Farmer]

Your master Bush.

Perhaps you can show me the part of Article II of the US Constitution that gives the President the authority to enact any policy he likes, dedicate the resources and finances toward that end, in order to stem the flow of illegal aliens pouring across our border, because I can't seem to find in anywhere in my copy. I do find all kinds of places in Article 1 whereby the Congress can submit a Bill to the President, and provide the resources and financing in support of their Bill, but I can't find it anywhere in Article I.

 

[Andy]

OMG! Andy agreed with me! I guess that must explain this:

I never disagree with someone simply because "they are liberal". I disagree with people if I believe them to be wrong. Normally the people who are wrong, are liberals. McCain is a perfect example. He's right about the war, that we need to finish it correctly and victoriously. On every other issue, he's a liberal. Doesn't mean when he says we need to stay till we're done, that I do not agree. You got this one right, so I agree.

There is no real evidence that big employers are lobbying for the government to be lax on illegal immigration other than my somewhat cynical appraisal of the way government usually works, along with the fact that the federal government has not addressed the issue in several decades. I'm not sure just how we'd prove the matter one way or the other.

Right. See I don't assume something unless there is real evidence suggesting it. I would never have assumed Al Bore had a half million in oil company stock either, until I found information proving so.

With how much backlash there was during the McCain amnesty bill... would you not have thought if there was big company funding it, that it would be front page news? If big companies where benefitting so much from illegal labor, wouldn't that be detailed somewhere by someone?

All the other effects of Illegal immigration is documented, why not this?

 

[Dr.Who]

Perhaps you can show me the part of Article II of the US Constitution that gives the President the authority to enact any policy he likes, dedicate the resources and finances toward that end, in order to stem the flow of illegal aliens pouring across our border, because I can't seem to find in anywhere in my copy. I do find all kinds of places in Article 1 whereby the Congress can submit a Bill to the President, and provide the resources and financing in support of their Bill, but I can't find it anywhere in Article I.

I love your way of thinking.

Yet he has the power of executive orders. Which allow him to dicate what federal agencies do. So he could for instance order them to enforce the law that already tells them how to stop illegal immigration and what to do with illegals.

 

[Federal Farmer]

I love your way of thinking.

Yet he has the power of executive orders. Which allow him to dicate what federal agencies do. So he could for instance order them to enforce the law that already tells them how to stop illegal immigration and what to do with illegals.

He could, and he has, by signing into Law the various Bills to build the fence, and all of the other border enforcement laws that have been passed. Where the problem comes in, is in Congress coming up with the money to pay for the Bills they proposed, and the various agencies having to wade through tons of federal regulations to make sure that when they're doing all of these wonderful things that they don't displace a single "protected" species, or do anything else that would result in a lawsuit being filed by the bunny lovers and tree huggers, which would stall, or even stop it in it's tracks.

We are, after all, a nation of laws. The problem is that so many of the laws we have directly contradict other laws. It's the same old problem we've been dealing with for almost 2 centuries, the American legal system has become a perpetual attorney employment service. Shakespeare was right, "the first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers" (Henry VI).

 

[PLC1]

I never disagree with someone simply because "they are liberal". I disagree with people if I believe them to be wrong. Normally the people who are wrong, are liberals. McCain is a perfect example. He's right about the war, that we need to finish it correctly and victoriously. On every other issue, he's a liberal. Doesn't mean when he says we need to stay till we're done, that I do not agree. You got this one right, so I agree.



Right. See I don't assume something unless there is real evidence suggesting it. I would never have assumed Al Bore had a half million in oil company stock either, until I found information proving so.

With how much backlash there was during the McCain amnesty bill... would you not have thought if there was big company funding it, that it would be front page news? If big companies where benefitting so much from illegal labor, wouldn't that be detailed somewhere by someone?

All the other effects of Illegal immigration is documented, why not this?

No big company is going to fund the amnesty bill. What they will fund is the campaign of a politician who they then expect to sponsor bills that are favorable to their needs. That's how it works. None of that is transparent and above board, of course.

That's why it isn't well documented.

Normally people who are wrong are liberals if you define a liberal to mean someone who doesn't share your point of view. Your thinking me a liberal is a result of that definition.

If you read my posts, you'll see that I don't subscribe to the big government is best government kind of thinking, nor do I have a philosophy based on the left to right one dimensional continuum.

 

[Andy]

No big company is going to fund the amnesty bill. What they will fund is the campaign of a politician who they then expect to sponsor bills that are favorable to their needs. That's how it works. None of that is transparent and above board, of course.

That's why it isn't well documented.

Normally people who are wrong are liberals if you define a liberal to mean someone who doesn't share your point of view. Your thinking me a liberal is a result of that definition.

If you read my posts, you'll see that I don't subscribe to the big government is best government kind of thinking, nor do I have a philosophy based on the left to right one dimensional continuum.

Where did I claim you were a Liberal? I merely said because you were right, I agreed.

No, most liberals are wrong because they are normally factually, logically, rationally, incorrect. It has nothing to do with my view at all. For example the thread about Repugs voting against mothers-day. Then you look it up, and the whole thing was a complete lie.

"What they will fund is the campaign of a politician who they then expect to sponsor bills that are favorable to their needs."

Not exactly true. Is it possible, that a person may hold views favorable to a corp's needs to begin with, and therefore is the reason they support them? Is it also possible, for a person to hold multiple views, and be supported based on a completely separate view?

For example, I hold the view that oil companies should be unrestrained from tapping US native sources for crude oil. If I ran for office, I may be supported by an oil company. Yet the oil company didn't pay me off, I held views they supported to begin with. Just like you may give money to a candidate whose views you support.

For example, a person here may believe in Amnesty, and yet believe in reduced government regulations. They might be supported, but not for their amnesty views.

Also, it's a false assumption to believe that all corporate support results in any government action. When Bush first got into the white house, a corporation which had donated money inquired about support, yet Bush told Enron to take a hike.

Normally, corporations don't waste money of this sort on someone who may not get into office. If they support a person, they support them like we do. If they are trying to get special favors, it's more like Enron's CEO stay at the lincoln bedroom in order to get Clinton to grease the skids on an India (if I remember right) power plant deal (that ultimately led to their crash later).

A good way to tell if someone is taking action based on conviction, or being paid off, is if they do something the directly contradicts all prior and future statements or actions. Granted, this isn't always true, but it's a good sign.

Examples:
1. Spending 8 years talking about evil, rich, law breaking, tax evading, white males. Then you pardon Marc Rich.... who... was a rich, law breaking, tax evading, white male.

2. Talking about the evils of oil, oil companies, and internal combustion engines, and then selling drilling rights of federal property to an oil company.

Now it seems clear that the millions from Rich's wife, and the $500 thousand in Occidental Petroleum Corporation stock... maybe just maybe, had an effect on policy. What do you think?

 

[PLC1]

Where did I claim you were a Liberal? I merely said because you were right, I agreed.

No, most liberals are wrong because they are normally factually, logically, rationally, incorrect. It has nothing to do with my view at all. For example the thread about Repugs voting against mothers-day. Then you look it up, and the whole thing was a complete lie.



Not exactly true. Is it possible, that a person may hold views favorable to a corp's needs to begin with, and therefore is the reason they support them? Is it also possible, for a person to hold multiple views, and be supported based on a completely separate view?

For example, I hold the view that oil companies should be unrestrained from tapping US native sources for crude oil. If I ran for office, I may be supported by an oil company. Yet the oil company didn't pay me off, I held views they supported to begin with. Just like you may give money to a candidate whose views you support.

For example, a person here may believe in Amnesty, and yet believe in reduced government regulations. They might be supported, but not for their amnesty views.

Also, it's a false assumption to believe that all corporate support results in any government action. When Bush first got into the white house, a corporation which had donated money inquired about support, yet Bush told Enron to take a hike.

Normally, corporations don't waste money of this sort on someone who may not get into office. If they support a person, they support them like we do. If they are trying to get special favors, it's more like Enron's CEO stay at the lincoln bedroom in order to get Clinton to grease the skids on an India (if I remember right) power plant deal (that ultimately led to their crash later).

A good way to tell if someone is taking action based on conviction, or being paid off, is if they do something the directly contradicts all prior and future statements or actions. Granted, this isn't always true, but it's a good sign.

Examples:
1. Spending 8 years talking about evil, rich, law breaking, tax evading, white males. Then you pardon Marc Rich.... who... was a rich, law breaking, tax evading, white male.

2. Talking about the evils of oil, oil companies, and internal combustion engines, and then selling drilling rights of federal property to an oil company.

Now it seems clear that the millions from Rich's wife, and the $500 thousand in Occidental Petroleum Corporation stock... maybe just maybe, had an effect on policy. What do you think?

Yes, of course it might.

And, while it is possible that politicians already have the same positions favored by their corporate sponsors, it is equally likely that they tend to tell people what they want to hear, and vote according to what is most likley to get them enough money to run another campaign. That isn't necessarily the fault of the pol, as there is no way to get elected without a lot of money, and no way to get a lot of money unless the donors expect that the pol will vote their way. What all of that means, of course, is that it is money rather than ideology, that runs Washington.

Where, for example, does McCain stand on the use of ethanol as motor fuel? Is he against it, as he told audiences in Arizona, or for it, as he told people in the corn belt?

I'm sure that there are many examples of pols from both parties pandering to the audience du jour. That's what they have to do to get elected.

I can remember Colin Powel standing in front of the camera telling the voters where he stood on all of the major issues of the day. I hoped for a moment that such a person would actually run and might even have a chance to win, but, no, no one is going to win an election by actually taking a stand on the major issues and telling the voters what that stand is. That simply is not how leaders get elected.