About Us
Mission Statement
Rules of Conduct
 
Name:
Pswd:
Remember Me
Register
 

Tea Leaves in the Bowl
Author: BobR    Date: 09/15/2010 04:01:49

It was another big primary day yesterday, with results that are likely to be micro-analyzed for some big meaning between now and election day... or at least between now and the next primary. Everyone is prognosticating and trying to read the tea leaves for the zeitgeist of the nation, and the results are all over the map.

Perhaps the biggest surprise was Delaware, where the Republican nomination went to marginal "tea party" candidate Christine O'Donnell over multi-term moderate Mike Castle. Was she really that compelling a candidate? There were stories about misuse of campaign funds, personal finances in shambles, and O'Donnell's lack of a college degree. Is this what the tea party wants? Someone with zero credentials over intellect and experience? Would you want a fuck-up running the company you work for? Why would you want one running the government?

The bigger question is whether she would do better against the Democrat running against her in the general election than the experienced moderate. I would guess not, which makes me wonder if the Republicans that voted in the primary are that delusional or just don't care because they wanted to "make a statement"? Either way, it does not reflect well on them (I would say the same about progressives that would rather have an unelectable far-left extremist than an electable moderate-liberal on the Dem ticket. FWIW, the definition of "extreme" varies from region to region, state to state, and district to district. It's all relative. Both Kucinich and Boehner keep getting re-elected in Ohio).

There are some Democrats that think this will backfire on the Republicans, to the Democrats benefit. They believe that moderates will reject an extreme candidate and vote for a Democrat instead. I certainly hope they're right. It's WAY too early to cheer the wins of tea party candidates in primaries, thinking they'll be easy to beat. Their more mainstream Republican opponents in the primaries thought that too, and now they are facing forced retirement.

Of course - not all Democrats are thinking that way. In fact, some are thinking the opposite. Some "big name" Democrat thinks that Congress is a lost cause. Who? Well - the linked article conveniently does not name names. This is very bad messaging coming from the Democrats. There is a certain percentage of the population that doesn't care either way and will vote for the one they think is going to win so they can feel like they are on the "winning team". If they perceive that to be the Republicans, then that's who will get their vote.

That's why the Democrats need to focus on the Republican agenda, all of which will end up doing the opposite of what the Republicans claim it will do. Rolling back "Obamacare" will increase the deficit, not reduce it. Continuing tax cuts for the richest 3% of Americans will increase the deficit, not reduce it (and contrary to another Republican talking point - the tax increases will not harm small businesses). The Republican agenda is just not very popular (very interesting graphs at the link). The Democrats should focus on the fact that peoples taxes ARE lower now than they were, that the deficit IS shrinking, and that the Dems plans HAVE improved the economy. There is no reason to be playing so timidly or defensively.

How this all plays out in November is anybody's guess, and I am not going to try. In New Hampshire, the tea party candidate won for the Republicans, and the more progressive candidate won for the Democrats. It will be interesting to see how that clash of purist ideals works out in the General.

But anyone that claims to be able to predict how things will turn out is just selling the Brooklyn Bridge to whoever will buy it.

 

43 comments (Latest Comment: 09/16/2010 00:52:27 by BobR)
   Perma Link

Share This!

Furl it!
Spurl
NewsVine
Reddit
Technorati

Add a Comment

Please login to add a comment...


Comments:

Order comments Newest to Oldest  Refresh Comments

Comment by TriSec on 09/15/2010 12:38:39
Morning, folks.

Actually, that race in NH is not yet decided; there's less than 500 votes separating the candidates this morning, at it hasn't been called yet. (GOP Senate Primary too close to call)

But I was listening to WBZ this morning, and at least one analyst is wondering if all the Tea Party victories will torpedo the GOP's effort to retake the Congress. It depends on how they caucus; will they vote GOP, or are we looking at a three-way in the future? Other nations make that work, but I doubt our tea-drinking friends are going to support many Democratic ideas.


And in a side note, why do I always need a stiff belt after any "adult" meeting involving my scout committee? I have one parent that is a true muckraker; she's always badmouthing one of the other adults. They dated briefly last season and it didn't end well, and now she's bringing her personal problems to the committee. I cut her off at the knees last night and then snapped her head off. Maybe the first time anyone has told her to grow up, as near as I could tell by her reaction.

Anyway...



Comment by TriSec on 09/15/2010 12:47:18
BTW, did anyone notice that the President made another speech to the nation's schoolchildren yesterday? What happened to all the histrionics?



Comment by BobR on 09/15/2010 12:47:56
End of an AV era: boeing plant torn down

Comment by BobR on 09/15/2010 12:48:44
Quote by TriSec:
BTW, did anyone notice that the President made another speech to the nation's schoolchildren yesterday? What happened to all the histrionics?


some schools didn't play the speech - but that wasn't talked about


Comment by Raine on 09/15/2010 14:02:29
Good Morning

Comment by Al from WV on 09/15/2010 14:08:06
It's a rare day that I listen to talk radio anymore, but this morning, waiting for a phone call on the way to work, I turned on the CD player... oops, punching the wrong button got me on talk radio. Some conservative's show, I suppose. Don't remember the name. He was railing against what he called "establishment Republicans."

I didn't listen too closely, because most of it was about something I could care less about - political strategy (which is 99% of politics today). I'm just stupid enough to vote my conscience and to wish everyone else would, too, if they have a conscience. The fact that political strategy (who can win, how to win, which party is better, which party does.... whatever) is the order of the day is the reason I've stopped posting on current events/political message places except for the very very rare post here. I have no stomach for it. It's party over principle, party over country, plain and simple.

None the less, one caller said something important that falls by the wayside when political strategy is the main point of the day (week, month, year, decade...). He said "I'd rather lose with a good person as a candidate than win with a bad person."

Wish I knew that guy. I like people like that, and I find damn few of them anywhere in America anymore, on any side of or angle from the political aisle.

Comment by Raine on 09/15/2010 14:19:14
Carl Paladino got the gubernatorial GOP nomination in NY. I thought for sure it would have been Rick Lazio.

It's really rather disgusting, From the NYT

The result was a potentially destabilizing blow for New York Republicans. It put at the top of the party's ticket a volatile newcomer who has forwarded e-mails to friends containing racist jokes and pornographic images, espoused turning prisons into dormitories where welfare recipients could be given classes on hygiene, and defended an ally's comparison of the Assembly speaker, Sheldon Silver, who is Jewish, to "an Antichrist or a Hitler."


Comment by TriSec on 09/15/2010 14:24:14
Quite a segment on Mr. Paladino on TRMS last night. Ya know, emailing porn would get you fired from just about anything I could think of. Except being a politician, of course.

Comment by TriSec on 09/15/2010 14:25:42
And in a side note, looks like my strategy to run on an "anti-incumbent" platform for school committee last year was one year too early. Next time the seats open up, I expect it to be one year too late. Alas.



Comment by Raine on 09/15/2010 14:26:11


It's cute!

Comment by BobR on 09/15/2010 14:34:40
Quote by Al from WV:
It's a rare day that I listen to talk radio anymore, but this morning, waiting for a phone call on the way to work, I turned on the CD player... oops, punching the wrong button got me on talk radio. Some conservative's show, I suppose. Don't remember the name. He was railing against what he called "establishment Republicans."

I didn't listen too closely, because most of it was about something I could care less about - political strategy (which is 99% of politics today). I'm just stupid enough to vote my conscience and to wish everyone else would, too, if they have a conscience. The fact that political strategy (who can win, how to win, which party is better, which party does.... whatever) is the order of the day is the reason I've stopped posting on current events/political message places except for the very very rare post here. I have no stomach for it. It's party over principle, party over country, plain and simple.

None the less, one caller said something important that falls by the wayside when political strategy is the main point of the day (week, month, year, decade...). He said "I'd rather lose with a good person as a candidate than win with a bad person."

Wish I knew that guy. I like people like that, and I find damn few of them anywhere in America anymore, on any side of or angle from the political aisle.

In an ideal world, there would be no parties, and all candidates would be funded by a government pool, thereby taking special interests out of the mix. Every candidate would be beholden only to their ideals, and the people in their districts that adhered to those ideals.

However, that world does not exist, and it never has. We've had parties since essentially the birth of our nation, so we have to work with the system we have in place.

Comment by TriSec on 09/15/2010 14:40:11
*sigh*.

The Sox are still mathematically in it, but we all know the season's done. So they have next year's schedule out already. There's an interesting visit by the Cubs (first time in since 1918), but guess who we open against? Again?

Come on guys, how about a little imagination?



Comment by Al from WV on 09/15/2010 14:53:19
Quote by BobR:
Quote by Al from WV:
It's a rare day that I listen to talk radio anymore, but this morning, waiting for a phone call on the way to work, I turned on the CD player... oops, punching the wrong button got me on talk radio. Some conservative's show, I suppose. Don't remember the name. He was railing against what he called "establishment Republicans."

I didn't listen too closely, because most of it was about something I could care less about - political strategy (which is 99% of politics today). I'm just stupid enough to vote my conscience and to wish everyone else would, too, if they have a conscience. The fact that political strategy (who can win, how to win, which party is better, which party does.... whatever) is the order of the day is the reason I've stopped posting on current events/political message places except for the very very rare post here. I have no stomach for it. It's party over principle, party over country, plain and simple.

None the less, one caller said something important that falls by the wayside when political strategy is the main point of the day (week, month, year, decade...). He said "I'd rather lose with a good person as a candidate than win with a bad person."

Wish I knew that guy. I like people like that, and I find damn few of them anywhere in America anymore, on any side of or angle from the political aisle.

In an ideal world, there would be no parties, and all candidates would be funded by a government pool, thereby taking special interests out of the mix. Every candidate would be beholden only to their ideals, and the people in their districts that adhered to those ideals.

However, that world does not exist, and it never has. We've had parties since essentially the birth of our nation, so we have to work with the system we have in place.

Sorry, Bob, I can't even agree with you about the ideal. I have read my copy of the Constitution over, again, and I cannot in good conscience and being a reasonable man, find any place in it that tells government to fund candidates.

I tend to want to stick to the words in the Constitution, as amended and as written and in the meaning of the day's language that they were written in. If that is not done, I believe the Constitution loses all backbone and becomes a general guideline that might or might not be followed, depending on the power, wishes, and convenience of the person making the decision.

All the best, anyway,

Al

Comment by livingonli on 09/15/2010 14:59:54
Good morning everyone. Paladino didn't just forward any porn. He forwarded bestiality stuff. You would think the family values teabagger types would not be big under any circumstances with someone who forwarded that around. Granted, Lazio's being so in bed with Wall Street interests makes him suspect to me.but he wasn't considered as much of a whack job.

Comment by TriSec on 09/15/2010 15:07:46
Al, I have to agree with Bob.


How do you level the playing field? Public funding of campaigns is about the only way I see out.


Suppose me, Joe Citizen, wants to challenge John Kerry for his Senate seat? There's no way; he's got a personal fortune, name recognition, and millions pouring in from corporate special interests. Following the Constitutional logic, the system is already predispositioned against an ordinary citizen running. Where does it say in the Constitution that a candidate for office needs to be well-connected and wealthy? I daresay the current system is the one that's unconstitutional. But that's just me.


Comment by BobR on 09/15/2010 15:13:46
Quote by Al from WV:
Quote by BobR:
Quote by Al from WV:
It's a rare day that I listen to talk radio anymore, but this morning, waiting for a phone call on the way to work, I turned on the CD player... oops, punching the wrong button got me on talk radio. Some conservative's show, I suppose. Don't remember the name. He was railing against what he called "establishment Republicans."

I didn't listen too closely, because most of it was about something I could care less about - political strategy (which is 99% of politics today). I'm just stupid enough to vote my conscience and to wish everyone else would, too, if they have a conscience. The fact that political strategy (who can win, how to win, which party is better, which party does.... whatever) is the order of the day is the reason I've stopped posting on current events/political message places except for the very very rare post here. I have no stomach for it. It's party over principle, party over country, plain and simple.

None the less, one caller said something important that falls by the wayside when political strategy is the main point of the day (week, month, year, decade...). He said "I'd rather lose with a good person as a candidate than win with a bad person."

Wish I knew that guy. I like people like that, and I find damn few of them anywhere in America anymore, on any side of or angle from the political aisle.

In an ideal world, there would be no parties, and all candidates would be funded by a government pool, thereby taking special interests out of the mix. Every candidate would be beholden only to their ideals, and the people in their districts that adhered to those ideals.

However, that world does not exist, and it never has. We've had parties since essentially the birth of our nation, so we have to work with the system we have in place.

Sorry, Bob, I can't even agree with you about the ideal. I have read my copy of the Constitution over, again, and I cannot in good conscience and being a reasonable man, find any place in it that tells government to fund candidates.

I tend to want to stick to the words in the Constitution, as amended and as written and in the meaning of the day's language that they were written in. If that is not done, I believe the Constitution loses all backbone and becomes a general guideline that might or might not be followed, depending on the power, wishes, and convenience of the person making the decision.

All the best, anyway,

Al

The Constitution provides Congress the power to create laws, so it would be possible for them to create campaign finance laws. Contrary to the notion that it would infringe on free speech, it would keep money from stifling the free speech of those without deep pockets.

Comment by BobR on 09/15/2010 15:15:37
Quote by TriSec:
*sigh*.

The Sox are still mathematically in it, but we all know the season's done. So they have next year's schedule out already. There's an interesting visit by the Cubs (first time in since 1918), but guess who we open against? Again?

Come on guys, how about a little imagination?


regional and intra-state rivalries are always an easy way to kick off opening a season. Every sport does it, even at the collegiate level.

Comment by livingonli on 09/15/2010 15:18:12
The only thing that is going to levy the playing field is to take money out of the equation. Citizens United didn't help matters.

Comment by Raine on 09/15/2010 15:22:35
I'm still trying to figure out where in the constitution is says that corporate cash is protected free speech.



The Supreme court seems to think so.





Comment by Scoopster on 09/15/2010 15:42:40
Morning all!

So last night one of the state reps for my town (not my own district tho) got deservedly trounced in the primary - the guy voted to rearrange school funding so that our town's budgeting for the next 8 years would be funneled elsewhere to plug shortfalls, and then had the nerve to pass out signs and ads in the local paper claiming he voted for school funding.

One of his relatives (sister i think?) replies to a comment I posted on a local politics blog basically claiming that he did no such thing and hurling personal insults at me ("I didn't poke fun at your appearance so I think it's a bit sophmoric to poke fun at the signs."). Ahhh, such class!

Comment by TriSec on 09/15/2010 15:45:08
Idle thought, weren't the Jets involved in a female reporter incident back in the 80s? Mark Gastineau, if memory serves. And the Patriots had an incident, too. Back when Victor Kayem used to own the team. Same kind of thing.



Comment by Raine on 09/15/2010 16:01:28
Quote by TriSec:
Idle thought, weren't the Jets involved in a female reporter incident back in the 80s? Mark Gastineau, if memory serves. And the Patriots had an incident, too. Back when Victor Kayem used to own the team. Same kind of thing.

I remember something like that.

You know here's a possible solution, how about not letting ANY reporters in players locker room?




Comment by Raine on 09/15/2010 16:08:25
It was Hannah Storm -- btw.

Comment by Raine on 09/15/2010 16:11:19
Tom Gainor? Again? Sorry Thom... *click*

Comment by Al from WV on 09/15/2010 16:31:00
Quote by TriSec:
Al, I have to agree with Bob.


How do you level the playing field? Public funding of campaigns is about the only way I see out.


Suppose me, Joe Citizen, wants to challenge John Kerry for his Senate seat? There's no way; he's got a personal fortune, name recognition, and millions pouring in from corporate special interests. Following the Constitutional logic, the system is already predispositioned against an ordinary citizen running. Where does it say in the Constitution that a candidate for office needs to be well-connected and wealthy? I daresay the current system is the one that's unconstitutional. But that's just me.

Show me the violation of the Constitution. There is no equality of outcome guaranteed in any founding document, nor in any responsibly judged aspect of life, only equality of existence. If equality of outcome were a responsible thing to want, then one would want every person to have the same material things, without regard to their industriousness, intelligence, ingenuity, or any other personal aspect. in such a system, why bother to have any positive personal qualities (in addition to it being anathema to the founders purposes as shown in their writings again and again and again).

The existing fact that rich people can spend enough money to influence people to vote for them is indeed ugly and needs to not be so. However, kicking the Constitution aside, or worse, pretending that it condones government being Big Daddy, is not an answer in line with what this country stands for, or at least what the paper the founding documents are written on say it stands for (not that it does much, anymore).

Comment by Al from WV on 09/15/2010 16:41:56
Quote by BobR:
Quote by Al from WV:
Quote by BobR:
Quote by Al from WV:
It's a rare day that I listen to talk radio anymore, but this morning, waiting for a phone call on the way to work, I turned on the CD player... oops, punching the wrong button got me on talk radio. Some conservative's show, I suppose. Don't remember the name. He was railing against what he called "establishment Republicans."

I didn't listen too closely, because most of it was about something I could care less about - political strategy (which is 99% of politics today). I'm just stupid enough to vote my conscience and to wish everyone else would, too, if they have a conscience. The fact that political strategy (who can win, how to win, which party is better, which party does.... whatever) is the order of the day is the reason I've stopped posting on current events/political message places except for the very very rare post here. I have no stomach for it. It's party over principle, party over country, plain and simple.

None the less, one caller said something important that falls by the wayside when political strategy is the main point of the day (week, month, year, decade...). He said "I'd rather lose with a good person as a candidate than win with a bad person."

Wish I knew that guy. I like people like that, and I find damn few of them anywhere in America anymore, on any side of or angle from the political aisle.

In an ideal world, there would be no parties, and all candidates would be funded by a government pool, thereby taking special interests out of the mix. Every candidate would be beholden only to their ideals, and the people in their districts that adhered to those ideals.

However, that world does not exist, and it never has. We've had parties since essentially the birth of our nation, so we have to work with the system we have in place.

Sorry, Bob, I can't even agree with you about the ideal. I have read my copy of the Constitution over, again, and I cannot in good conscience and being a reasonable man, find any place in it that tells government to fund candidates.

I tend to want to stick to the words in the Constitution, as amended and as written and in the meaning of the day's language that they were written in. If that is not done, I believe the Constitution loses all backbone and becomes a general guideline that might or might not be followed, depending on the power, wishes, and convenience of the person making the decision.

All the best, anyway,

Al

The Constitution provides Congress the power to create laws, so it would be possible for them to create campaign finance laws. Contrary to the notion that it would infringe on free speech, it would keep money from stifling the free speech of those without deep pockets.

If I take your response at face value, I have to believe that you are saying that Congress can pass whatever laws it wants, without complying with the Constitution in the law. I know you know better. Congress can only create laws to execute the powers specifically given to it. I suppose it might be hidden under the pretense that the general welfare phrase really means "whatever feels good today." That's a notion that I reject, personally, but I see a lot of people espousing, changing "whatever feels good today" to "this seems like a good thing" without changing the real motivation under it.

None the less, as I've said before, I expect no change. The Constitution is no longer a document that bounds government, as it was for most of it's life to date, it is now a document that gets twisted and turned and contorted as necessary to "allow" what somebody can get most of the vocal people to like. Usually, that's some form of lowering discipline and assisting rebellion against existing order. The wishes of the 60s have come to pass. What was yesterday is "the establishment" and it MUST be taken down. Nevermind good sense, right, adherence to the actual words in the Constitution...

It is no surprise that I have not been a happy person for a long time. I packed my old uniform away this weekend, there's nothing left to be proud of. The Constitution I thought I was defending does not exist anymore, in any real practical sense.

Comment by BobR on 09/15/2010 17:12:20
Quote by Al from WV:
Quote by TriSec:
Al, I have to agree with Bob.


How do you level the playing field? Public funding of campaigns is about the only way I see out.


Suppose me, Joe Citizen, wants to challenge John Kerry for his Senate seat? There's no way; he's got a personal fortune, name recognition, and millions pouring in from corporate special interests. Following the Constitutional logic, the system is already predispositioned against an ordinary citizen running. Where does it say in the Constitution that a candidate for office needs to be well-connected and wealthy? I daresay the current system is the one that's unconstitutional. But that's just me.

Show me the violation of the Constitution. There is no equality of outcome guaranteed in any founding document, nor in any responsibly judged aspect of life, only equality of existence. If equality of outcome were a responsible thing to want, then one would want every person to have the same material things, without regard to their industriousness, intelligence, ingenuity, or any other personal aspect. in such a system, why bother to have any positive personal qualities (in addition to it being anathema to the founders purposes as shown in their writings again and again and again).

The existing fact that rich people can spend enough money to influence people to vote for them is indeed ugly and needs to not be so. However, kicking the Constitution aside, or worse, pretending that it condones government being Big Daddy, is not an answer in line with what this country stands for, or at least what the paper the founding documents are written on say it stands for (not that it does much, anymore).

I think this is a strawman argument. Once again, this is about equal access, not equal outcome. Our argument is similar to the equal rights legislation of the 60s, where blacks were promised equal opportunity. What they did with it was up to them.

In the same vein, equal opportunity to participate as candidates in the electoral process is not possible so long as it require large sums of money.

Comment by BobR on 09/15/2010 17:15:48
Quote by Al from WV:
Quote by BobR:
Quote by Al from WV:
Quote by BobR:
In an ideal world, there would be no parties, and all candidates would be funded by a government pool, thereby taking special interests out of the mix. Every candidate would be beholden only to their ideals, and the people in their districts that adhered to those ideals.

However, that world does not exist, and it never has. We've had parties since essentially the birth of our nation, so we have to work with the system we have in place.

Sorry, Bob, I can't even agree with you about the ideal. I have read my copy of the Constitution over, again, and I cannot in good conscience and being a reasonable man, find any place in it that tells government to fund candidates.

I tend to want to stick to the words in the Constitution, as amended and as written and in the meaning of the day's language that they were written in. If that is not done, I believe the Constitution loses all backbone and becomes a general guideline that might or might not be followed, depending on the power, wishes, and convenience of the person making the decision.

All the best, anyway,

Al

The Constitution provides Congress the power to create laws, so it would be possible for them to create campaign finance laws. Contrary to the notion that it would infringe on free speech, it would keep money from stifling the free speech of those without deep pockets.

If I take your response at face value, I have to believe that you are saying that Congress can pass whatever laws it wants, without complying with the Constitution in the law. I know you know better. Congress can only create laws to execute the powers specifically given to it. I suppose it might be hidden under the pretense that the general welfare phrase really means "whatever feels good today." That's a notion that I reject, personally, but I see a lot of people espousing, changing "whatever feels good today" to "this seems like a good thing" without changing the real motivation under it.

None the less, as I've said before, I expect no change. The Constitution is no longer a document that bounds government, as it was for most of it's life to date, it is now a document that gets twisted and turned and contorted as necessary to "allow" what somebody can get most of the vocal people to like. Usually, that's some form of lowering discipline and assisting rebellion against existing order. The wishes of the 60s have come to pass. What was yesterday is "the establishment" and it MUST be taken down. Nevermind good sense, right, adherence to the actual words in the Constitution...

It is no surprise that I have not been a happy person for a long time. I packed my old uniform away this weekend, there's nothing left to be proud of. The Constitution I thought I was defending does not exist anymore, in any real practical sense.

That's right - you DO know me better. We have a branch of government (the SCOTUS) that is in place to determine whether laws pass Constitutional muster. How you feel about any particular law will influence your opinion as to whether you think they are doing their job properly.

While you did a good job of supposing my thoughts and then shooting them down, that really has nothing to do with what I was saying.


Comment by TriSec on 09/15/2010 17:37:44
The one thing the constitution didn't address is "death by a thousand cuts". Both parties seem to be trying to outdo each other in the race to the bottom. We thought Bush was bad; you think Obama is bad, and meanwhile more gets eroded. Of course, the ones that would actually protect anything are either powerless, on the wrong side, or end up getting swept aside after they cross the wrong person.


And so we all lose.

Comment by TriSec on 09/15/2010 17:58:14
Looks like Ayotte is the winner in NH

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) ―
New Hampshire has certified former state Attorney General Kelly Ayotte as the winner of the Republican primary for U.S. Senate.

Ayotte was endorsed by former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and won a narrow victory over Ovide Lamontagne.

His conservative credentials and courting of the tea party pulled him close in the final days of the campaign.

Lamontagne has until 5 p.m. to decide whether he'll seek a recount because the margin of victory fell within 1.5 percent of the total votes cast.

The secretary of state's office says Ayotte's official margin of victory was 1,667 votes.

Ayotte will face U.S. Rep. Paul Hodes, who was unopposed in the Democratic primary.


Comment by Al from WV on 09/15/2010 18:05:20
Quote by BobR:

Quote by Al from WV:

Quote by BobR:

Quote by Al from WV:

Quote by BobR:

In an ideal world, there would be no parties, and all candidates would be funded by a government pool, thereby taking special interests out of the mix. Every candidate would be beholden only to their ideals, and the people in their districts that adhered to those ideals.



However, that world does not exist, and it never has. We've had parties since essentially the birth of our nation, so we have to work with the system we have in place.


Sorry, Bob, I can't even agree with you about the ideal. I have read my copy of the Constitution over, again, and I cannot in good conscience and being a reasonable man, find any place in it that tells government to fund candidates.



I tend to want to stick to the words in the Constitution, as amended and as written and in the meaning of the day's language that they were written in. If that is not done, I believe the Constitution loses all backbone and becomes a general guideline that might or might not be followed, depending on the power, wishes, and convenience of the person making the decision.



All the best, anyway,



Al


The Constitution provides Congress the power to create laws, so it would be possible for them to create campaign finance laws. Contrary to the notion that it would infringe on free speech, it would keep money from stifling the free speech of those without deep pockets.


If I take your response at face value, I have to believe that you are saying that Congress can pass whatever laws it wants, without complying with the Constitution in the law. I know you know better. Congress can only create laws to execute the powers specifically given to it. I suppose it might be hidden under the pretense that the general welfare phrase really means "whatever feels good today." That's a notion that I reject, personally, but I see a lot of people espousing, changing "whatever feels good today" to "this seems like a good thing" without changing the real motivation under it.



None the less, as I've said before, I expect no change. The Constitution is no longer a document that bounds government, as it was for most of it's life to date, it is now a document that gets twisted and turned and contorted as necessary to "allow" what somebody can get most of the vocal people to like. Usually, that's some form of lowering discipline and assisting rebellion against existing order. The wishes of the 60s have come to pass. What was yesterday is "the establishment" and it MUST be taken down. Nevermind good sense, right, adherence to the actual words in the Constitution...



It is no surprise that I have not been a happy person for a long time. I packed my old uniform away this weekend, there's nothing left to be proud of. The Constitution I thought I was defending does not exist anymore, in any real practical sense.


That's right - you DO know me better. We have a branch of government (the SCOTUS) that is in place to determine whether laws pass Constitutional muster. How you feel about any particular law will influence your opinion as to whether you think they are doing their job properly.



While you did a good job of supposing my thoughts and then shooting them down, that really has nothing to do with what I was saying.



Sorry it seemed I was being that cheap with my comment. My apologies. I feel like I feel, and the words on the page don't change. Others feel different. It is what it is, and it's never going to go in a direction that the words on the page mean squat, and that is a simple demonstrated fact.



Wish we'd been able to talk about what I was actually saying, but it's nice to talk to you anyway. Take care. If my buddy makes anymore of that one wine I'll see if I can get you two some. I doubt it, but I'll see.



Best,



Al

Comment by Raine on 09/15/2010 18:05:23
This is to fill Judd Greggs seat, Correct? How does the Dem Candidate look?

Comment by Al from WV on 09/15/2010 18:11:31
Quote by TriSec:

The one thing the constitution didn't address is "death by a thousand cuts". Both parties seem to be trying to outdo each other in the race to the bottom. We thought Bush was bad; you think Obama is bad, and meanwhile more gets eroded. Of course, the ones that would actually protect anything are either powerless, on the wrong side, or end up getting swept aside after they cross the wrong person.





And so we all lose.


I think we all lost at about the end of "Both parties" to be honest. I don't think Obama is bad. I don't like some of the stuff, but I still think he's the better option from the last election. I am yet to say "I wish I had voted for ______ instead of Obama." I just wish there was a heck of a lot better. There should be. There's no good reason that there's not a lot better (both a lot that are better and some that are a lot better). There are some damned poor reasons, but no good ones that I know of.



And yeah, "more eroded" all the time, yep... yep... you nailed that.



so it goes. damn shame. twas a good experiment, but it's got a lousy end.

Comment by Raine on 09/15/2010 18:13:07
This is a serious problem I have with elections:

Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman gave her campaign another $15 million Tuesday. The latest contribution brings Whitman's personal spending in the race to $119 million, shattering the record for most money ever spent by one political candidate on a single election in American history.

This should not be legal.


Comment by livingonli on 09/15/2010 18:30:06
Quote by Raine:
This is a serious problem I have with elections:

Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman gave her campaign another $15 million Tuesday. The latest contribution brings Whitman's personal spending in the race to $119 million, shattering the record for most money ever spent by one political candidate on a single election in American history.

This should not be legal.

How much is Carl Paladino going to spend here?

Comment by livingonli on 09/15/2010 18:30:31
Off to the doctor. Take two.

Comment by BobR on 09/15/2010 18:32:56
Quote by Raine:

This is a serious problem I have with elections:



Republican gubernatorial candidate Meg Whitman gave her campaign another $15 million Tuesday. The latest contribution brings Whitman's personal spending in the race to $119 million, shattering the record for most money ever spent by one political candidate on a single election in American history.


This should not be legal.



Legal or no, it seems like a bad investment for a job that pays < $200k/yr. It makes one wonder about their outlook on money, it's value, and the common man's struggles with it.



On the other hand, I doubt our founding fathers would be in support of buying a seat in Congress.

Comment by TriSec on 09/15/2010 18:44:46
Don't forget, Mitt the Twitt was entirely self-funded last time, and I'd imagine he will be next time, too. (Think about that every time you go to Dunks, owned by Bain Capitol. That kills me every week.)

But then again, the Kennedy clan bought the presidency in 1960, too. Cutty Sark, anyone?

Probably just illustrates all the points made today. If you want it, you can buy it, and there's nothing against that in the Constitution.

(And on a side note, a local candidate for City Council here spent 10k of his own money last year...and dropped out before the primary.)


Comment by Al from WV on 09/15/2010 19:05:46
Quote by TriSec:

Al, I have to agree with Bob.





How do you level the playing field? Public funding of campaigns is about the only way I see out.





Suppose me, Joe Citizen, wants to challenge John Kerry for his Senate seat? There's no way; he's got a personal fortune, name recognition, and millions pouring in from corporate special interests. Following the Constitutional logic, the system is already predispositioned against an ordinary citizen running. Where does it say in the Constitution that a candidate for office needs to be well-connected and wealthy? I daresay the current system is the one that's unconstitutional. But that's just me.

(boldface emphasis mine)



The one other thing that's gone undiscussed is this: I have to agree that government funding of some sort appears to be the only way to relieve the fact (yes, a conservative person thinks this is a fact too, you guys try not to faint) that anyone without big money connections cannot mount an honestly competitive campaign. I should add that I define "honestly competitive" without inserting voter response as to support in the definition (because it is an outcome, not a cause).



However, I do not believe that the Constitution as currently written allows the government to tell a private citizen whether or not they can finance their own campaign. It would take an amendment, a carefully crafted amendment, and I frankly wish the Congress would get one started. I may just add that to my personal statement of what I think Congress should persue as to the Constitution in my blog.



This bears adding, because I agree as to Bob's statement:

Quote by BobR:



On the other hand, I doubt our founding fathers would be in support of buying a seat in Congress.




I do think a Constitutional amendment is necessary to stop this. I also think the founding fathers would tread carefully here, given their (long forgotten) commitment to actual liberty (as opposed to the contrived "liberty" so much thrown about today). I think they would be aghast that the American voter would give such a candidate a thought, much less a vote.



However, in the absence of a voting public that will reject this, it is a bad enough thing that I would support a Constitutional amendment (as I said above) to fix it (details to be resolved when the amendment is put forth), because I agree with Bob's statement about what the founders would tolerate.

Comment by Will in Chicago on 09/15/2010 22:14:05
Hello, bloggers!

I hope that everyone is well. I have been busy with a few things.

One thing that gives me encouragement, despite all the political disagreements in this nature, is that we are having an honest dialog here on issues. I worry that the amount of money required to run for public office sets us up for the possibilities of a new aristocracy or people so beholden to their financial backers that those financial backers might as well be in office. I think the fact that we are struggling over this issue shows our love for our democracy. So, I think in addition to celebrating an honest dialog here, we should also celebrate a common love for our country and our system of government. I think that we will find a solution, although it will not be easy.

Comment by livingonli on 09/15/2010 23:21:01
I'm back. I did lose 3 pounds in the last month so at least it's moving in the right direction. I still got a way to go, but I would like it to stick this time.

Comment by BobR on 09/16/2010 00:52:27
Quote by livingonli:
I'm back. I did lose 3 pounds in the last month so at least it's moving in the right direction. I still got a way to go, but I would like it to stick this time.

Does your doctor give you diet and exercise advice? Do you actually follow it? That would be key...