by Mark Silva
While candidates for president talk about all the special-interest lobbyists funneling money into the campaigns, there's one profession taking a special interest in this year's contest:
Professors.
Marcella Bombardieri of the Boston Globe reports: "Professors and others in the education field have given more to federal candidates running in 2008 than those who work in the oil, pharmaceutical, and computer industries -- a sign of how academia has become a much bigger player in the political cash sweepstakes.
"Of the more than $7 million that academics donated in the first half of this year, more than $4.1 million went to presidential campaigns, particularly Barack Obama's, according to a study released this month by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. The Illinois senator brought in almost $1.5 million, while Hillary Clinton received nearly $940,000.
"Republican Mitt Romney was in third place, with about $448,000, but overall, three-quarters of contributions went to Democrats.
"Donors from Harvard University top the list, with nearly $280,000 in contributions from individuals in the first half of the year. More than 80 percent of the donations went to Democrats, and about 40 percent to Obama, who graduated from Harvard Law School.''
For more, see the Globe's report here:
Academia has '08 cash clout
Education field donating more in presidential race
By Marcella Bombardieri
Globe Staff
August 23, 2007
Professors and others in the education field have given more to federal candidates running in 2008 than those who work in the oil, pharmaceutical, and computer industries -- a sign of how academia has become a much bigger player in the political cash sweepstakes.
Of the more than $7 million that academics donated in the first half of this year, more than $4.1 million went to presidential campaigns, particularly Barack Obama's, according to a study released this month by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics. The Illinois senator brought in almost $1.5 million, while Hillary Clinton received nearly $940,000.
Republican Mitt Romney was in third place, with about $448,000, but overall, three-quarters of contributions went to Democrats.
Donors from Harvard University top the list, with nearly $280,000 in contributions from individuals in the first half of the year. More than 80 percent of the donations went to Democrats, and about 40 percent to Obama, who graduated from Harvard Law School.
Law school luminaries Laurence Tribe, Charles Ogletree, and Lani Guinier have each lavished the maximum primary donation of $2,300 on Obama, while their colleague Alan Dershowitz gave $1,000 to Clinton.
When donations from seven other Boston-area universities and colleges, plus the University of Massachusetts system, are added, individuals gave about $462,000 in the first half of the year, with 86 percent going to Democrats, according to an analysis provided to the Globe yesterday.
The clout of academic money in presidential and congressional races has grown dramatically in recent years, according to the center's analysis of Federal Election Commission data.
Education ranked 34th among industries in terms of employee contributions in 1996 with a total of about $8.8 million, but nearly doubled to $16.5 million in the 2000 election and more than doubled again to $37 million in 2004, when it ranked eighth among all industries.
For the 2008 campaign so far, education ranks 14th. Among the industries whose employees have given more are law, medicine, Wall Street, and real estate.
Analysts say the donations in this presidential election cycle are largely due to widespread opposition to the Bush administration and the Iraq war.
"It has really been surprising to us the extent to which the education industry has started kicking into presidential politics," said Massie Ritsch, spokesman for the Center for Responsive Politics. "It's not a group you would normally think would have a lot of money to kick around $1,000 contributions. The motivation seems to be that they want a Democrat in the White House, and they want to keep a Democratic Congress."
Professors have become more aware in recent years of the crucial role money plays in politics, said Theda Skocpol, a political scientist and dean of Harvard's graduate school of arts and sciences. Meanwhile, candidates, particularly Democrats, have made much greater efforts, particularly online, to reach out for smaller donations, she added.
While many academics are modestly paid, those with tenure at the top private institutions often earn six-figure salaries, and those in business, medical, and law schools are especially well compensated. A university like Harvard also includes professors and fellows who do not fit the usual Ivory Tower mold, having made fortunes elsewhere or spent part of their careers in politics.
At Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government, for instance, professor Stephen Goldsmith is the former mayor of Indianapolis and a former policy adviser to President Bush. He has already given $4,600 -- the maximum allowed for the primary and general election -- to Republican Rudy Giuliani. Professor Graham Allison, who gave $1,000 to Obama this year and $2,000 to Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut in December, was an assistant secretary of defense in the Clinton administration.
Clinton is leading the Democratic presidential field in national polls, but Obama polls particularly well among educated, affluent voters. At Harvard, where he graduated from law school in 1991, he also benefits from being a recent alumnus who has maintained friendships with several prominent professors.
Clinton graduated from Wellesley College in 1969. Of the $6,900 its staff have donated this year, $4,400 went to the New York senator.
Dershowitz has known her since she was a law student at Yale University and socializes with her and former president Bill Clinton. He has also been helping sell tickets for a Clinton fund-raiser on Martha's Vineyard this weekend.
Friendships aside, Dershowitz said he and many of his colleagues are focused on choosing the most electable Democrat, fueled by outrage at the Bush administration.
"At dinner tables we have tactical arguments. Is America more racist or more sexist?" Dershowitz said, referring to the fact that Obama is black and Clinton is a woman and his friends are fearful that American voters are not ready to elect either a minority or woman as president.
His law school colleague Ogletree has been a mentor to Obama since the candidate was in law school, and is advising the campaign. "To paraphrase a trite phase, to know him is to love him," Ogletree said. "He is a sleeping giant."
A spokesman for Clinton declined to comment, while a spokesman for Obama said the campaign is pleased to have so much help and enthusiasm from academia.
The education industry includes some primary and secondary school teachers but not many, because most teachers make their political contributions through union political action committees, which are counted separately, Ritsch said.
It also includes non-faculty administrators and staff, but professors predominate. As nonprofits, universities are not allowed to make political contributions. The center also counts donations from family members without other jobs -- homemaker spouses and children -- because they often donate as proxies for the breadwinner.
The data include contributions of more than $200 to candidates for president, the US Senate, and US House, as well as parties and committees involved in national politics. The study could provide fresh ammunition to conservatives who rail about liberal bias in the academy.
"Academia today is much more like a church with a creed than an open marketplace of ideas," said Stephen Balch, president of the conservative National Association of Scholars.
Liberal-leaning professors respond that most of their colleagues go out of their way to teach all sides of an issue. Staying out of politics would send the wrong message to students, Skocpol said. "To make a political judgment and a choice is not bias," she said. "It is citizenship, and that is a big difference."
• 
• 
• 
Comments
In the 1970s, the radical left in this country led by the Berkeley dozen set their targets on long-term infiltration of two opinion-molding professions: academia and journalism. Now, 30 plus years later, their people are in senior positions in both: college faculties and the Washington bureaus of major newspapers. So, is it any surprise that professors support leftist candidates? And any surprise that 90 percent of Washington reporters by self-admission vote Democrat?
Posted by: LaTrice | August 23, 2007 9:18 AM
"And any surprise that 90 percent of Washington reporters by self-admission vote Democrat?
Posted by: LaTrice | August 23, 2007 9:18 AM"
And is it any surprise that you didn't post a link to back up this claim? If you have proof of this number, let's see it.
Posted by: BC | August 23, 2007 10:11 AM
BC,
This admission was off the record of course, but it's true because LaTrice says so. Note to Frenchy. Academics tend to be liberal because they are in the profession for altruistic reasons, spreading knowledge and understanding to future generations. Republicans just care about money thats why they don't tend to choose academia as a profession.
Posted by: john | August 23, 2007 10:34 AM
BC's admits to ignorance of left wing bias in the media. The facts have been posted on the Swamp many times. The latest study showed that the major media types give 9 times more often to Democrats than to Republicans. For a summary of several surveys of Beltway media leftwing bias, see the Media Research Center's study, linked to at http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b7e15b928dc.htm.
It contains several surveys of how Beltway reporters, by their own admission, vote 80-90% Democrat.
Posted by: Bruce | August 23, 2007 10:35 AM
Bruce,
That survey is just evidence that journalists tend to support Democratic candidates and vote on Democratic issues. It says nothing about biased presentation of news. Talk about distortions. You can't make up facts without providing evidence to support your conclusion. Academics know this, why don't you?
Posted by: jethro | August 23, 2007 10:51 AM
To BC: The source is Pew Research and the actual number of Wash reporters admitting to being conservative was just 7 percent. I just rounded it out for those who have trouble with long division.
Posted by: LaTrice | August 23, 2007 10:58 AM
Here is another stat, but of course the Ding Dongs that make up the Loony Left are incapable of accepting any stat that may alter their way of thinking:
http://www.studentsforacademicfreedom.org/archive/2005/October2005/HawaiiReporterLawJournalismSchools101305.htm
And Beverly Hillbilly Jethro, liberal bias in media has been proven over and over and over again.
Posted by: John D | August 23, 2007 11:05 AM
Little Johnny D,
Give 5 examples within the last year of proven liberal media bias.
Posted by: jethro | August 23, 2007 11:26 AM
Hey Ding Dong John D., besides Air America, provide some examples of liberal/ progressive radio talk shows.
Posted by: Doug R. | August 23, 2007 11:44 AM
John D., Take Jetro up on his challenge. Give us 5 very specific examples - and, I'll add - without resorting to the reports coming from Rush Limbaugh or Fox.
Posted by: snalg | August 23, 2007 12:16 PM
Still waiting Johnny D. I've seen shows called This Week in Business, The Weekly Business Report, etc. but I've never seen a Workers Weekly Report or anything similar on MSM so called liberal biased TV. Hardly supports your claim when shows are more likely to promote big business than they are worker's issues. What is more liberal thank discussing the livelihoods of workers?
Posted by: jethro | August 23, 2007 12:31 PM
"SUPREME COURT NO LONGER WILL DO LECTURES ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES AROUND AMERICA"
COULD YOU IMAGINE BEING A LAW PROFESSOR GIVING A FISA CLASS ON MONDAY, AND FAILING YOUR STUDENTS ON FRIDAY BECAUSE THERE INTERPRETATION OF CONSTITUTION HAS NOW BEEN CHALLEGED AND THEY SIDED WITH BUSH BASED ON CURRENT "EXUCUTIVE PRIVILEGE"
COULD YOU IMAGINE BEING A CONSTITUTIONAL PROFESSOR AND YOUR EXAM IS ON EXCUTIVE BRANCH OF OUR GOVERNMENT AND IF IN FACT THE VICE PRESIDENT IS NOT PART OF THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH. CAN YOU SPELL CAOS AND MASS CONFUSION.
SO AT THE END OF THE DAY, YES IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THE GOP AND DNC ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES.
I DON'T SEE THE DNC SKIRTING THE TRUTH BUT I DO SEE THE GOP SKIRTING ANY QUESTIONS AS THEY ARE UNDER PRESIDENTIAL GAG ORDER UNTIL NEXT YEAR.
GREAT DEBATE, NOW THATS A 90 MINUTE DEBATE WORTH WATCHING. I THINK NEWT WOULD BE A GREAT HOST TO QUESTIONS LIKE THAT.
Posted by: Roger Morris | August 23, 2007 12:34 PM
Ok, Loons, here you go:
http://www.polisci.ucla.edu/faculty/groseclose/Media.Bias.8.htm
This one provides links to a host of studies. And before you Loons say, "conservative outlet!" while this link goes to a conservative outlet, the links provided are from independent research organizations:
http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics1.asp
Now, some of my examples of media bias:
1. CBS News/Dan Blather/Mary Mopes forged memo story.
2. NBC News deliberately blowing up cars for Dateline.
3. CNN admitting wrongdoing in Gen. Westmoreland special.
4. Meet the Press, moderated by former Dem operative Tim Russert.
5. This Week on ABC moderated by former Dem operative George Stephanopolous.
6. Mark Silva and Frank James and Michael Tackett continually using left-wing sources for their articles.
Hmmm, so far I have provided way more than 10 (between links above and the six I noted).
Would you Loony Left losers like more???
And Doug R., in addtion to Air UnAmerica, liberal radio hosts include:
Alan Colmes, Progressive Radio/Media (they have a local outlet here), and Progress Media. Would you like more????
Posted by: John D | August 23, 2007 12:36 PM
Media bias is simple to demonstrate. I've already posted several statistical studies on how the Swamp reporting is biased.
But for those Liberals who can't or won't read, try looking at this very screen and its special "Obama Watch". Or shift your eyes to left at the bloggers link list, which includes numerous leftwing blogs (Kos, HuffPo, Political Wire, Political Animal, Wonkette, NYTimes, WaPost, LA Times, among others) but only one right wing blog (red state--note that the Swamp can't even get red state's name correct--it's .com, not .org).
Posted by: Bruce | August 23, 2007 12:42 PM
I love the way those who claim that academe has been taken over by communists all use the same sources: David Horowitz and the National Association of "Scholars". Their evidence is thin.
That said, I expect this study is somewhat overblown. Professors don't make enough to give large donations to political candidates. So it is numbers rather than amounts that make up the totals. Why do conservatives hate participation in democracy?
Posted by: athena | August 23, 2007 1:17 PM
I'm going out on a limb here, but wouldn't one make the assumption that college professors, in particular law school professors, have higher IQ's than the population at large? Therefore, one could argue that it is because they are SMARTER than the average population that "liberals" are over-represented in academia.
As another poster alluded to, university education is about the quest for knowledge, an inherently liberal enterprise. Conservatives, by definition those in favor of conserving the status quo, are less likely to look for answers that might serve to shake said status quo, whereas liberals support stirring that pot.
Of course, you're not likely to get super-rich in academia, which might also explain why fewer Republicans seek to join its ranks.
If RNC Bruce and Johnny Torture want to change academia, perhaps they can convince more of their conservative friends to give up lucrative careers in the business world in favor of the more noble enterprise of education.
Posted by: Hmmmm | August 23, 2007 1:24 PM
Johnny D,
Nice try. I said within the past year. Show specific examples of 5 instances of liberal bias.
Posted by: jethro | August 23, 2007 2:41 PM
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Students_for_Academic_Freedom
JohnD, anything backed by David Horowitz is seriously biased. He's a major nut job.
Here's what a former colleague back in his leftist days says about him.
"A contemporary of Horowitz's during his Ramparts days described his political transition from the left to the right in 1991,
The phone rings and a guy in my office says, "It's David Horowitz." I haven't spoken to David Horowitz since the end of the '60s, when we both worked at Ramparts. Since then, with another former Ramparts editor, Peter Collier, this little creep has written a series of best-selling portraits of ruling class families--The Rockefellers, The Fords, The Kennedys--and boasted in print about voting for Ronald Reagan. Horowitz and Collier say they once believed fervently in left causes and institutions (from the Soviet Union to the Black Panther Party), and when they discovered these institutions to be corrupt and murderous they had to denounce them and come out for the other side.
There are many flaws in this "logic." For openers, there aren't just two sides in this world (the fake left and the cruel right). And sure it's demoralizing to learn that the party that supposedly stands for equality is run by opportunists and actually stands for privilege. But that wouldn't lead a real radical to endorse the all-out pursuit of privilege. It should lead you to call for a movement that's serious about establishing equality. Horowitz and Collier were never radicals for a minute. Their goal was and is personal success. It's no coincidence that they were "left" in the '60s and "right" in the '80s.
Gardner, Fred
"Hollywood Confidential: Part I"[4]
Viet Nam Generation Journal & Newsletter-V3, N3 (November 1991)[5]
Published Online by Th
e Sixties Project[6]"
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?
title=David_Horowitz_%28ex-Marxist%29
One of Horowitz's latest capers is telling people that the California Highway Patrol is using his video "What Every American Needs to Know About Jihad." Which the Highway Patrol denies.
And here's more.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/max-blumenthal/david-horowitzs-double_b_28795.html
He really hates Americans and their freedom so you're probably the president of his fan club, John.
Posted by: Catherine | August 23, 2007 2:52 PM
A definition of bias from the UCLA prof's paper that John D provided.
Our Definition of Bias
Before proceeding, it is useful to clarify our definition of bias. Most important, the definition has nothing to do with the honesty or accuracy of the news outlet. Instead, our notion is more like a taste or preference.
Posted by: kb | August 23, 2007 2:54 PM
But for those Liberals who can't or won't read, try looking at this very screen and its special "Obama Watch".
Posted by: Bruce | August 23, 2007 12:42 PM
I'm sure that has nothing to do with the fact that Obama is the current U.S. Senator for the state of Illinois...the state that includes Chicago....the city that the Chicago Tribune is located. But what do I know.
Posted by: Marko | August 23, 2007 3:27 PM
Beverly Hillbilly Jethro,
Here are five or more in just the past year:
1. Anything from Keith Olberidiot's show.
2. Most anything written by Frank James.
3. Most anything written by Mark Silva.
4. Most anything written by Michael Tackett.
5. Most anything written by Willian Niekirk.
6. Practically all reporting on NBC News.
7. Practically all reports from David Gregory (though I will give him kudos for an excellent interview with Tony Snow a couple of weeks ago).
8. Most anything in the pages of the NY Times.
Posted by: John D | August 23, 2007 3:46 PM
"Johnny D,
Nice try. I said within the past year. Show specific examples of 5 instances of liberal bias." - jethro
-------
Give me a break! Jethro, would you also like specific examples of 5 instances that were made on the second Tuesday of each month by a man wearing a pink jumpsuit?
He gave you concrete examples. As such, it is plausible that the MSM demonstrates a liberal bias.
That's the point, right?
Posted by: RT | August 23, 2007 4:06 PM
Ding Dong John D.- You did not answer my simple question. You did not answer Jethro's question either. My question to you was, beside Air America, provide me the names of some liberal/ progressive radio talk show hosts. You gave me one person- Alan Colmes. He's on Fox Lies with O'Hannity. As we know talk radio is monopolized by right wing, conservative, Republicans who distort, spin, and slant the facts. What they report/ speak of is clearly right wing bias.
Posted by: Doug R. | August 23, 2007 4:15 PM
RT,
That is pathetic that you believe John Ds first round of submissions are concrete examples, but then again you believe that Saddam is connected to 9/11 because the President says so, right?
Posted by: jethro | August 23, 2007 4:33 PM
I wonder if the Tribune can give us an example of diversity (at least one conservative vs. most if not all liberals) in its Washington bureau. The assumption is that there is not a single
conservative in the Wash bureau. Next question: how did it get that way?
Posted by: Jamal | August 23, 2007 6:24 PM
Doug R:
Read again: And Doug R., in addtion to Air UnAmerica, liberal radio hosts include:
Alan Colmes, Progressive Radio/Media (they have a local outlet here), and Progress Media. Would you like more????
Progessive Radio/Media, Progress Media are liberal radio station outlets, much like Air UnAmerica. All of their DJs are loony leftists like you. They have their own websites. One of them has an outlet here in Chicago. You do the work for a change.
If you want names, google liberal radio hosts.
Posted by: John D | August 23, 2007 6:54 PM
Most talk radio hosts have a bias, but they are open about it. You don't hear the I'm impartial garbage.
Academics who indoctrinate get paid less because they are saving the whole world with their wisdom. LOL
Posted by: whatnow | August 23, 2007 7:30 PM
'HEY JOHN D. NO ONE FORGED ANYTHING, BUSH WENT AWOL TO AVOID BEING THE MAN YOU GO TO SLEEP AT NIGHT THINKING HE IS.
MR. ROGERS PASSED AWAY A LONG TIME AGO, GET A NEW SWEATER ITS NOT THE SAME AMERICA AS YOU ONCE KNEW IT ON PBS. THEY TOO ARE UNDER ATTACK BY THIS ADMINISTRATION.
ALSO IF YOU GO BACK TO THE NIGHT OF THE 2000 ELECTION YOU WILL SEE THE PHONE CALL MADE BY JEB TO HIS FATHER AT THE RANCH ON NATIONAL TELEVISION. RIGHT AFTER KATHERINE HARRIS GOT THE STAIN OFF HER COLLAR FROM JEB. WE GOT THIS DADDY HOW COULD YOU HAVE MISSED THAT!
COLLEGE EXAM, OUT PARTYING THAT NIGHT, BEGGING THE LITTLE LADY FOR SOME EXTRA CURRICULAR ACTIVITIES SUCH AS WATCHING 24 OR DARK ANGEL AND YA MISSED IT.
COME ON, HOW ABOUT BREAKING OUT ALL THOSE RAP VIDEOS DICK CHENEY MADE IN 1994 ABOUT TAKING OUT SADAAM AND WHAT IT WOULD DO TO IRAQ, AND WHY IT WOULD CAUSE SUCH A QUAGMIRE. NOW THOSE ARE SOME GREAT POETRY HE WAS SPITTING OUT IN DARK BARRY WHITE VOICE HE HAS. SO SO EVIL SEXY VOICE HE HAS.
JOHN D, GET A NEW SWEATER MR. ROGERS IS GONE, ITS NOT A BEAUTIFUL DAY IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS ANYMORE WE ARE UNDER DAILY CONSTITUTIONAL ATTACKS BY THIS ADMINISTRATION.
Posted by: Roger Morris | August 23, 2007 7:32 PM
ROGER, YES, THOSE "MEMOS"
WERE FORGED. EVEN CBS'S OWN INVESTIGATION PROVED THAT OUT. BUSH WAS NOT AWOL. FROM 1968-1973, BUSH PUT IN MORE TIME IN THE NATIONAL GUARD THAN WAS REQUIRED OF HIM. IN 1973 HE PUT IN THE BARE MINIMUM AND ASKED TO BE RELEASED FROM HIS COMMITMENT, WHICH WAS GRANTED TO HIM.
BUT YOU KEEP LIVING IN YOUR UNREALITY WORLD OF NO SENSE, HYSTERICAL RANTS AND ALL CAP POSTS, OK?
Posted by: John D | August 23, 2007 9:29 PM
Doug R -
An additional name - Nate Clay on WLS - granted he's on at Sunday at Midnight (probably when all the stoners listen to him). There aren't more liberal talk show host because who wants to listen to them p1ss 'n' moan hour after hour?
Add Mike Malloy, Bernie Ward, Lynn Samuels, Ed Schultz, Whoopi Goldberg, Nancy Skinner
Hmmmmm,
"Those who can't teach"
Also, academia might might not make much money, but the lifestyle is great. If the academia choose to make money, they do some consulting work and have their grad assistants perform the grunt labor for free.
Posted by: Terry | August 23, 2007 10:36 PM
Those who can't teach"
Also, academia might might not make much money, but the lifestyle is great. If the academia choose to make money, they do some consulting work and have their grad assistants perform the grunt labor for free.
Posted by: Terry | August 23, 2007 10:36 PM
So where are all the conservatives, Terry?
Posted by: Hmmmm | August 24, 2007 10:51 AM
Hmmmmm,
"Those who can't teach"
Posted by: Terry | August 23, 2007 10:36 PM
Why did you put in quotations a phrase (and a short glib one at that) that was not included in my post, and attribute it to me? Next time, how about responding to something that was actually written, eh??
Posted by: Hmmmm | August 24, 2007 10:53 AM
Bruce, I just clicked on your link and received this:
Document Not Found
Sorry, the requested document does not exist on this server.
Please try to provide REAL LINKS to back up your claims. Just saying that "it's been posted before" doesn't cut it anymore.
Posted by: BC | August 24, 2007 11:20 AM
WOW! This is the second time that John D actually produced links to web site stories that support the claims he makes in his Swamp posts!
I am so glad that I was sitting down when I saw this - now I better check the thermometer down in Hell.
Posted by: BC | August 24, 2007 11:24 AM
John D says:
"Meet the Press, moderated by former Dem operative Tim Russert" is an example of liberal bias.
I don't think so:
[quote]
Flashed on the courtroom computer screens were her notes from 2004 about how Cheney could respond to allegations that the Bush administration had played fast and loose with evidence of Iraq's nuclear ambitions. Option 1: "MTP-VP," she wrote, then listed the pros and cons of a vice presidential appearance on the Sunday show. Under "pro," she wrote: "control message."
"I suggested we put the vice president on 'Meet the Press,' which was a tactic we often used," Martin testified. "It's our best format."
[/quote]
source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/25/AR2007012501951.html
Cheney has NEVER gone on television on what could be considered a "liberal" show.
Posted by: BC | August 24, 2007 11:38 AM
Sorry John D, but your "source" is as right wing biased as they come.
From their About page:
Leaders of America's conservative movement have long believed that within the national news media a strident liberal bias existed that influenced the public's understanding of critical issues. On October 1, 1987, a group of young determined conservatives set out to not only prove — through sound scientific research — that liberal bias in the media does exist and undermines traditional American values, but also to neutralize its impact on the American political scene.
Posted by: BC | August 24, 2007 11:46 AM
Hmmmm,
Let me correct that quote:
"Those who can't DO, teach"
The conservatives are out building the economy of the greatest nation in the world and making money to send their kids to be sc hooled by these lefties. Something wrong with that picture, but that's the system.
BC - Tim Russert advised two New York Democrats: Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Gov. Mario Cuomo. No Republicans
Posted by: Terry | August 24, 2007 9:17 PM