Bill Brady, Barack Obama's Poker Buddy: 'Socialist With Everyone's Money But [His] Own'

Right now, the state of Illinois is getting to know Bill Brady, the upstart right-wing Republican for governor who's taken a double-digit lead over incumbent Democrat Pat Quinn.

But Brady comes to the governor's race from the Illinois State Senate, where he represents the Bloomington area. From 2002 to 2004, he served in the Senate alongside a Senator from Chicago by the name of Barack Obama.

David Remnick's new biography of the President, "The Bridge: The Life And Rise Of Barack Obama," mentions that the two were not only Senate colleagues, but also poker buddies. And NBC Chicago's Ward Room discovered, in reading the book, that Brady had a choice quip for the future POTUS describing his accumulation of wealth at the table.

From "The Bridge," page 301:

[Obama] was a cautious player, folding hand after hand, waiting for his moment to bluff or go big on a good hand ... Obama's caution, hidden behind a cloud of cigarette smoke, could be maddening. One Republican, Bill Brady, of Bloomington, told Obama, 'You're a socialist with everybody's money but your own.'

Comments

[Michael Ludin]

07:16 AM on 04/11/2010

Thanks Dr. Logic. Fanned. Thanks for saying succinctly what I could only do through sarcasm!

[VeroucaSalt]

04:23 PM on 04/09/2010

... words that could only come from a Republican mouth.

[stevecollins]

07:38 PM on 04/09/2010

Have you stopped to consider that your comment is vacuous?

[Maezeppa]

10:31 AM on 04/10/2010

One doesn't normally do that with accurate comments.

[amdezurik]

04:10 PM on 04/09/2010

sounds like a joke during a game, probably got a lot of laughs.

[roostertatoo]

04:03 PM on 04/09/2010

why is this a story?

[SteveSFM]

03:51 PM on 04/09/2010

The notion that Obama is in any way a socialist is objectively false.

[Walter M Roberts III]

04:05 PM on 04/09/2010

Read my three part comment to see the reason why it is "objectively true" that Obama is in the socialist tradition just like FDR, LBJ, and all democrats of such stripe.

[Vere15]

04:25 PM on 04/09/2010

So is that a good thing or a bad thing. Incidently, Corporatism was a heathen invention, Communism was a Marxian invention and Socialism was a Christian one

[Brendan H]

05:39 PM on 04/09/2010

The primary fallacy you are committing is considering Kolakowski's work to be objectively correct. It is not. You may agree with it (I largely do), but that does not make it objectively correct. As such, Obama may fit his definition of a "Democratic Socialist", but that's isn't objective.

The second fallacy you are committing is assuming that someone fitting a definition of "Democratic Socialist" makes them a "Socialist". That isn't necessarily true. In fact, it's more often flat out incorrect. Basically, your point rests on the notion that Socialism is an umbrella term and all other forms of government that are either offshoots or related forms must also fall under that umbrella definition of Socialism. That simply is not true. Socialism is a specific ideology and just because someone follows an ideology that stems from socialism or is related to socialism does not mean that that person is also plainly a socialist. Simply put: Democratic Socialism is not simply a FORM of socialism. It's a separate ideology that has some of the characteristics of Socialism, and to be honest Obama falls MUCH more comfortably under the related ideology of Social Democracy.

The proof for this is that one cannot vociferously support Capitalism and be a Socialist. They are antithetical to each other. However, one can be a broad supporter of Capitalism, but still be a Democratic Socialist (although they will usually fall under Social Democracy much better in that case).

[creasedemon]

04:16 PM on 04/09/2010

Given the complexity of the term Socialism, as well as it's many forms, it's a bit difficult to say that he doesn't fit some idea of the socialist model. It impossible to say that he fits none of the criteria. Therfore, it's not objectively false.

[Jaladeno]

04:26 PM on 04/09/2010

If we can just throw labels on people, it sure simplifies things for the base, don't it??? Oh, you betcha!!!

[DanBest]

04:28 PM on 04/09/2010

Fox News should change their motto to "it's not objectively false"

[DanBest]

03:41 PM on 04/09/2010

Return to reason writes:
"If not, are you ok paying for all the Federal benefits and protections for the other half who makes $30,000, $40,000, $50,000 a year???
Yeah I'm okay with that. Most of them work hard and deserve more support. The rich, on the other hand have gone from a 90 percent tax rate in 1960 down to around 35 today. When the tax rate was 90 they paid for it. When it went down to the 30s, the rest of us paid for it increasing revenue shortfalls.

[Seattle34]

04:13 PM on 04/09/2010

Even though there was a 90% tax rate 50 years ago, nobody paid it. The effective tax rate is what you need to look at. That measures what you pay out versus what you take in.

During Clinton, during Bush, during Reagan...it remains around 31% for the wealthiest 1% in this country. The changes from president to president are really nothing.

In other words, if you earn a million, you pay about $310,000 in taxes.

[DanBest]

04:26 PM on 04/09/2010

You aren't really telling me something I don't know. When you raise a speed limit people go 5-10 MPh faster. Same with taxation, they didn't pay 90 but they probably weren't getting their effective rate down to 30 either. Do you think that a rate of 30 percent doesn't carry a lower effective rate? Reagan cut the upper end rate from around 70 down to 33. We have never recovered from that budget shortfall.

[LastStar]

03:38 PM on 04/09/2010

This bagger has a “double digit” lead over the democratic governor! Do not the voters of Illinois realize you not only elect the person but you’re also electing his party?

The party platforms and positions on issues should be listed right next to the candidate’s name. Forget what candidates "say" while campaigning....the platforms reveal their real allegiance.

[vippy]

03:36 PM on 04/09/2010

That phrase " with everyone else's money but his" applies to the banksters, CEOs, and politicians. So what is his point?

[Walter M Roberts III]

03:31 PM on 04/09/2010

(Part THREE) Regarding the type of "socialism" that is RIGHTLY associated with Europe, Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson (and now Obama), Kolakowski writes: "In the developed industrial countries, all social institutions for the purpose of evening out inequalities and ensuring a minimum of security (progressive taxation, health services, unemployment relief, price controls, etc.) have been created and extended at the price of a vastly expanded state bureaucracy, and no one can suggest how to avoid paying this price" (p.1210). This last he calls "democratic socialism" and defines as very separate from both Marxism and, of course, Communism. This is what Europe has widely accepted and what the Right in America vociferously wants to reject. So yes, Obama, Johnson, Roosevelt, most of Europe ARE part of "democratic socialism" or as it is sometimes called "the Welfare state". But that most certainly does not make them Marxists or Communists. We need to learn the difference, just so our discussions can be a little more insightful and a bit less inflammatory.

[buzzard123]

03:51 PM on 04/09/2010

You're quite verbose today, but you make a good point.
I think a lot of folks should be educated about the words they are throwing around.
Tea Baggers with their use of the word fascism cracks me up all the time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
Rebuilding the public school system to educate our young on actual history and the actual meaning of words would be a good start to reduce ignorance in the US, but then again, that's socialism.

[Walter M Roberts III]

04:06 PM on 04/09/2010

Yes, being a professor, I tend to verbosity. Have a good day!

[Walter M Roberts III]

03:30 PM on 04/09/2010

(Part TWO) Even if you don't think you have the stamina for 1,300 pages of Kolakowski [ 'all men are NOT created equal!], you might just check out volume I, chapter 10: "Socialist Ideas in the First Half of the Nineteenth Century as Compared with Marxian Socialism". Then, to see where things went totally off the rails check out volume II, chapter 16: "The Rise of Leninism" for the key move of restricting membership in the communist party to a "disciplined elite", which lead to the crushing of all dissent which opened the door for full blown Stalinism (cf. vol. III, chapters 1, 3, and 4)- a house of horrors from which Russia is still trying to recover. Some quotes from the epilogue: "It was Marx who declared that the whole idea of Communism could be summed up in a single formula--the abolition of private property; that the state of the future must take over the centralized management of the means of production, and that the abolition of capital meant the abolition of wage-labor . . . In the event it turned out that, having nationalized the means of production, it was possible to erect on this foundation a monstrous edifice of lies, exploitation, and oppression. This was not itself a consequence of Marxism; rather, Communism was a bastard version of the socialist idea, owing its origin to many historical circumstance and chances, of which Marxist ideology was one." (p. 1209).

[marlalovestyler]

03:30 PM on 04/09/2010

Sounds like the POTUS is a pretty shrewd poker player. Not a bad trait to have in a President. Never show your tells. No when to go all in and when to fold.

[Walter M Roberts III]

03:28 PM on 04/09/2010

(Part ONE) Anyone interested in REALLY understanding what "socialism" and "Marxism" and "communism" mean, and what is the difference between them should read Lesek Kolakowski's 'Main Currents of Marxism". It's a 1,300 page journey, but it will make you a much more well informed human being. The first "socialists" were people who did not advocate revolutionary political change but merely wanted governments to take an interest in improving the social conditions of mid-19th century workers who were being BRUTALIZED by inhuman working and living conditions during the early days of the industrial revolution. And actually, the man whose followers invented the term--Robert Owen (1771-1858)--was actually welcomed by and allowed to address both houses of Congress and the then sitting president. (cf. "Pursuing the Millennium", chapter 8 of David Walker Howe's "What God Hath Wrought"--a history of America 1815-1848, Oxford) Owen was quite the celebrity in American political circles until it became known that he did not believe in biblical revelation and was in favor of "free love" (Ouch!)

[marlalovestyler]

03:27 PM on 04/09/2010

So I guess the money he donated to charity from his Nobel Peace Prize doesn't count.

[kristaS]

03:25 PM on 04/09/2010

Sounds like a sore loser

[Jaladeno]

03:52 PM on 04/09/2010

I was just thinking poor comedian, but you may be correct.

[buzzard123]

03:22 PM on 04/09/2010

So Brady was out-classed at the poker table by Mr. Obama.
I think there are quite a few nefarious people feeling the same way right now.
The article should be titled "Sour grapes now becomes a political platform".