Join 3,494 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Sick money
September 26, 2009 4:40 AM   Subscribe

The same billionaires for Bush are baaaaack, and now they want to profit from health care.
posted by twoleftfeet (15 comments total) 3 users marked this as a favorite

 
They were apparently in the Twin Cities last night and I was busy. Darn it!
posted by wheelieman at 6:24 AM on September 26, 2009


I am against this. No, wait...
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 6:55 AM on September 26, 2009


I love this kind of street theatre! Maybe I'll start a chapter here!
posted by mareli at 7:05 AM on September 26, 2009


Their rival group on the right, communist for kerry, was so good at their satire that fox news thought they were sincere. Or atleast wanted to be outraged before doing proper research. It strikes me as odd that communist for kerry was started by an immigrant.

What i found striking was how convincing a lot of them look as wealthy socialites. I expected more young people looking awkward in rented tuxedos.

The sad irony being that it's probably not exactly cheap to pretend that you have money.
posted by djduckie at 7:32 AM on September 26, 2009 [1 favorite]


As well-done as this is, it's still too subtle for people who think of FOX news as Fair and Balanced.

And honestly, every signal I've gotten from them indicates that they DO admire billionaires.
posted by Legomancer at 8:53 AM on September 26, 2009


Why can't we just address the problem straight-on? This is a pretty passive aggressive approach, and it has a weird snarky, dismissive undertone. I'm not even sure who benefits from a site like this...
posted by spiderskull at 8:55 AM on September 26, 2009


It bothers me that people stopped referring to them as Billionaires for Bush and Gore. That was the original name and it was a pretty legit street theater group. Andy Boyd knew a thing or two back in the day. Billionaires for Bush in its latest form is nothing but low hanging fruit.
posted by allen.spaulding at 8:56 AM on September 26, 2009


I saw them counter-protesting the 9/12 demonstrations in DC. Here are a few photos I took: 1 2 3. Tangentially related, another guy: 1 2.
posted by rmannion at 12:03 PM on September 26, 2009


In 2000 when they were Billionaires for Bush and Gore they looked much less convincing - perhaps the past nine years have let the participants grow into their roles. Also, Kerry and Obama enjoyed marginally less corporate support than Gore, hardly enough to warrant a name change.

Would that these activists reflect on these facts and conclude they could probably be doing more effective - but perhaps less self-satisfying - things on behalf of their purported cause.
posted by kgander at 2:13 PM on September 26, 2009


Yeah, they make me really sad. Their presence in 2000 was really provocative; by 2004 they were just another bland get-out-the-vote message.

I remember listening to an NPR interview with them in 2004. God bless the interviewer, she tried to point out that Kerry came from just as high a pedigree as bush did. Their response was a totally weak, "Yes, but Kerry's policies betray other billionaires." Bleck.

But this video made me laugh.
posted by roll truck roll at 2:32 PM on September 26, 2009


If you go to a teabagger rally as an obvious counter protester you get spit upon and possibly attacked (see also the video.) If you go as a billionaire this doesn't happen. So it seems like a pure survival tactic for people who want to counter protest.
posted by twoleftfeet at 4:23 PM on September 26, 2009


Why can't we just address the problem straight-on? This is a pretty passive aggressive approach, and it has a weird snarky, dismissive undertone. I'm not even sure who benefits from a site like this...

It's the difference between the Left and the Right. While the Right is all about triggering the fear reflex, along with an undercurrent of bigotry and violence, the Left is about snarky passive-aggressive street theater. And then the Left wonders why the Right keeps being more influential.
posted by happyroach at 5:04 PM on September 26, 2009


This explains the hipster in a top hat I saw yesterday.

(Yes, really. Near Mission & 2nd.)
posted by ryanrs at 10:33 PM on September 26, 2009


The difference between the right and the more-right, you mean. There is little to no "left" in America.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:30 AM on September 27, 2009


The difference between the right and the more-right, you mean. There is little to no "left" in America.

Oh come on. A significant portion of the grassroots Democratic party is progressive liberal. I grew up in the South (for a while) and knew a fair share of avowed communists and anarchists. America may, overall, be more conservative than many 1st world countries, but it isn't that much more-so. The realities of a (small r) republican system of government make our leaders more "mainstream conservative" than most of their constituents, but the House of Representatives (where the members hold districts closer in size to a Canadian MP) is a much more varied, idealistic bunch and is, at the moment, quite liberal in makeup.

Please don't trade in stereotypes. (And yeah, I realize the comment you replied to was chock full of them too.)
posted by napkin at 12:24 PM on September 27, 2009


« Older Japanese Matchbox Labels is a fine collection (fli...  |  Horrifically bad software demo... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments