by Newcomer
As an aside (to Chicklet), did you hear about yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling? It struck down a significant portion of McCain-Feingold that had made it illegal for private corporations to pay for ads either in support of or against a political candidate. In a way, this related to what I was discussing here about what a powerful lobbying block the Telecomm Industry is. This ruling, while a victory for freedom of speech, also clears the way for more special interest money to flow into the political process. The companies cannot give money to a candidate’s campaign directly, but they CAN put up an ad either supporting ‘their’ candidate or denouncing, even attacking ‘their’ candidate’s opponent. This has the potential to make candidates (once elected) beholden to the special interests of the corporations that supported them.
To me, this is a dangerous thing. There’s already too much special interest money in politics. And the result can be sweeping legislation like the Telecommunications Act of 1996 where an industry has far more rights than do the American citizens do as consumers of that industry.
I hope that Senators McCain and Feingold get together again because of this ruling and introduce either an amendment to their prior legislation or introduce a whole, new bill to tighten up the campaign finance reforms. Since they, nor anyone, can legally limit the free speech of these corporations to advocate for and/or denounce any candidate they choose, maybe one suggestion would be to legislate that a non-partisan group be started and maintained, funded equally by both the DNC and RNC, to track and publicize (by maintaining a current and consistently updated website) any and all funds that each candidate receives. Exempt small contributions from private individuals - you can’t really track every $50 that every John/Jane Doe kicks in. But set a reasonable dollar amount above which, every contribution must be disclosed to this new non-partisan group. This would enable all voters to see which corporations and wealthy private citizens, and PACs that a potential candidate may owe favors to if elected. The mere existence of such a website might make these politicians think twice about where they take money from too. It would certainly give voters one more source of info when weighing their decision about which candidate to support.
They say that money is the root of all evil, and power corrupts. In Washington, money is power and right now, regular people like you and I have nowhere near the amount of power and money that these corporations and PACs have. That needs to change. If we cannot legally take money out of politics, then we have to expose the sources of it to the light of day and in this way have accountability and more information. Knowledge is also power. If we voters can easily find out that some candidate is in the pocket of a health insurance provider or a union or a telecomm provider, a big law firm, because of the amount of money such an entity is spending on a candidate’s campaign, then we can hold the candidate accountable for that during the campaign, while we still have time to take that into consideration before casting our vote.
Legislation that favors an Industry at the expense of a human being is off-balance, to say the least. This kind of thing cannot be allowed to continue.
Here’s a link to the Supreme Court Decision I mentioned:
So the American people need a lobby within their own country? Sounds like “business” is fast becoming the “country”
Chick,
I had just drafted a detailed reply to you about this and was nearly finished. Then I hit my mouse by accident and poofed it off into God Knows where. I hate that. Don’t think I’m ignoring you but I’m going to take a break and maybe try again later.
[…] Woodstock CT Café – Also Serving Eastford, Pomfret, Brooklyn As an aside (to Chicklet), did you hear about yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling? It struck down a significant portion of McCain-Feingold that had made it illegal for private corpora… […]
Newcomer;
Here is an interesting web site that lists and tracks much of the special
interest and lobby money spent.
http://www.opensecrets.org/
There is so much money spread around I dont think we could ever
“drain the swamp”….
As you can see it is BOTH repubs and dems that are deep into cash…
Db
Newcomer,
Keep in mind that Unions have had the right to donate money to political campaigns, while corporations have not. This is why the Dems are up in arms now, because this levels the playing field. Ha!
All that being said, I am of leary special interest groups, corporate or union, who play an ever increasing role in determining policy that may not be in the best interest of the country or of the working class taxpayer. Nonetheless, the voice of the people can and will be heard if they are passionate enough-take the Scott Brown win for example. Driving up through rural Mass. today, I was in awe of all the hand made signs in support of Brown, huge and passionate, that were on display on so many of the front lawns of middle class neighborhoods. It was really a sight to see and it made me proud that people still care enough about the issues that they are willing to fight for them.
dbrownie,
Thank you for the link. Scary, but helpful.
Tax,
I can support the freedom of speech that the Constitution affords us and that the Supreme Court just upheld. BUT, the voters also have the right to know who is financing our candidates and for how much - even indirectly. So I still say it needs to become law that if a union, private corporation or whatever pays for an ad for and/or against a candidate, we the people need to know about it.
I was up in Waltham for a few hours on Tuesday’s election day and the election was all anyone seemed to be talking about. Out of a good 2 dozen or so people that I talked to and also overheard talking within earshot of me (you know, other folks talking to each other on an elevator, etc.) everyone said they were voting for Scott Brown. One lady I talked to was ticked because her father was voting for Coakley. Aside from that one lady’s dad, there was a lot of excitement about Brown. When I left to head home, I figured if my small, random sample was any indication, Brown would win fairly handily. I still watched the coverage though.
I am thoughtfully liberal with conservative spending tendencies, if there is such a thing. I don’t have a better, or politically correct way to say this: a lot of people want WELFARE reform/social services reform. Scott Brown represents a change in that respect. Ted Kennedy was an excellent advocate for the poor, but the “poor” in the last 40 years have multiplied and evolved into a second and third generation of what a lot people now call “Teddy’s kids.” I think Brown represents a change in how the “Teddy’s” system abusers/dependents will be handled.
In today’s Wall St. Journal:
“California needs to take on its public employee unions.”
“Approximately 85% of the state’s 235,000 employees (not including higher education employees) are unionized. As the governor noted during his $83 billion budget roll-out, over the past decade pension costs for public employees increased 2,000%. State revenues increased only 24% over the same period. A Schwarzenegger adviser wrote in the San Jose Mercury News in the past few days that, “This year alone, $3 billion was diverted to pension costs from other programs.” There are now more than 15,000 government retirees statewide who receive pensions that exceed $100,000 a year, according to the California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility.”
“Many of these retirees are former police officers, firefighters, and prison guards who can retire at age 50 with a pension that equals 90% of their final year’s pay. The pensions for these (and all other retirees) increase each year with inflation and are guaranteed by taxpayers forever—regardless of what happens in the economy or whether the state’s pensions funds have been fully funded (which they haven’t been).”
Must be nice.
For years Unions have been able to dump huge amounts of $$$ into Democratic campaigns while private corporations have not….and no one whined and complained. Now the playing field has been leveled and the Dems are in an uproar.
Tax,
Both parties need to fix this and make it right. Dems might be in an uproar because now private corporations can throw their $$ around a campaign just like unions, BUT if the people are not made aware of exactly which groups and companies (private, union, whatever) are using their money to influence legislation by influencing who gets elected, this is what leads to things like these tea bag parties and upset voters. I heard on one of the cable news channels the other day that Reupblicans are filing to become candidates all over the country now since Scott Brown was swept in. I guess they think it’s their year. They forget that many of the voters who swept in Scott Brown were Independents who don’t care what party someone belongs to. They vote for the person - usually the lesser of two evils. Independents are the ones who should be flocking to register as candidates for elections because in this climate, as long as they have a sound and solid background. they’ll be the ones swept in. I think the majority of voters are fed up with both parties and their usual game-playing crap.
I agree Newcomer. The Scott Brown election was not a mandate for the Republican party, much like the election for Barack Obama was not a mandate for liberalism. The message from both elections was clear as day: as you so poignantly stated, “voters are fed up with both parties and their usual game-playing crap.”
Sorry, Taxpayer, but I’m going to have to disagree with you here. In my opinion, Scott Brown’s election in Massachusetts was a direct referendum on Obama healthcare and the Democrats’ attempt to cram government control of healthcare down the throats of the people who just don’t want it in its current form. When all the people of Massachusetts with great healthcare plans realized that they might be paying taxes on them or that they might lose them or they might lose their right to control their medical care it was an easy choice. Scott Brown directly declared that he would vote against the healthcare bill. I also believe it was a reaction to Obama’s policies regarding the handling of terrorists as simple criminal felons, reading them their rights, and giving them trials in the court system. It also might have something to do with Cap and Trade, out of control spending, and the viewing of our pension contributions as a big pot of money that they can get their hands into next. To say that the liberal state of Massachusetts voted for Scott Brown because they were fed up with both parties is just liberal spin and I’m surprised that you or anyone would buy that. Even the Democrats on a national level know what it means. If they were fed up with both parties they could just as easily have kept their “Kennedy senate seat” filled with a democrat. Liberal Massachusetts voting a Republican into Kennedy’s slot is truly a monumental event.
Tax;
Also Mr Brown ran on a very conservative platform, very contrary to many of
Pres Obama’s ideas. For example he had said how terror suspects should not have the same constitutional rights as US citizens and had no problem with water-boarding if necessary to save US lives.
Brown also supports women’s right to choose, though he opposes partial-birth abortion and believes in strong parental notification laws.
To me he sounded very pragmatic on very basic issues. I think that is why he won…
Db
DB, I am surprised that Brown (I think he is a vet) would support waterboarding and by your post that you would support it as well. Any information that you get from torture is virtually worthless. If you need to torture them to get information, they are going to lie to you. Why wouldn’t they?
We used to give pilots false information to feed back to captors that had a glint of truth so that their captors would believe it.
Any one in the know in the military knows that torture doesn’t work. In fact as documented this fall, the only good information we got was from traditional interrogation methods. Once the torture started, the information stopped. This was attested to be several FBI and CIA agents, to the embarrasment of Cheney.
We need to keep in mind that we are fighting a war for hearts and minds. As soon as we use tactics in order to make short term gains and sacrifice long term objectives, we will continue down the path of losing this war.
Also, Brown is a hypocrite. He voted for the mandatory coverage for all Mass residents (resulting in Mass having the highest insurance rates in the country). He just read the tea leaves and changed his mind. I dont have much respect for people without principles.
Dean;
I believe he still is a LT Colonel in the Ma national guard. Not being in the military I don’t know what works and doesn’t. I do know that if we tell the enemy what we will and won’t do by showing our play book they have an advantage. Besides we still let others do the dirty work,
rendition is still carried out by other countries. So the no “tourture”
is a liberal fantasy. Harsh interrogation is outsourced.
I do think letting a terrorist “lawyer up” is ridiculous. Putting on a show trial in a NY court room for enemy combatants is just as crazy.
During WW 2 we caught German spies that landed on Long Island who
were attempting to sabotage our power plants and rail lines.
They were given a military trial found guilty and hanged.
That process would suit me fine.
Db
DB, frankly that works for me too. My problem is the torture part. Outsourcing it doesn’t work. You have the same problem, they lie. They have to want to give you the information.
Remember, it was Bush that started these civilian trials.
Numbers,
Actually, I think we agree on some level. I stated that Scott Brown’s election was not a mandate for the Republican party (although perhaps for moderate conservatism as you suggest) but rather, a rebuttal against liberalism-or more specifically a liberal healthcare plan (as you also suggest). To equate a vote against DemCare as being a vote for the Republican party is absurd. The same moderate independent voters that vanquished Ms. Coakley are the same voters who will vanquish the Republican party in a heart beat if they do not meet their expectations (Hello.Isn’t this what happened in 2009 to the Republicans?)
A recent January 2010 poll by the WSJ shows that 21% of Americans identify themselves as being liberal, 38% moderate, and 34% conservative. These numbers have essentially not changed for the last 4 years (even as President Obama was elected and inaugurated!). For the Democrats to push a liberal agenda is an electoral suicide-and Scott Brown’s election was a clearly warning. Likewise,however, it is this same profile of voters who were fed up with the Republican party as early as last year!
So I will stick with my premise that the majority of Americans (being center-right)are fed up with both parties and this was exemplified in the recent Massachuetts Seanate election. It was in fact the independents in MA who won it for Brown-and these same voters who giveth, can also taketh it away. Principles remain the same, but there is no allegiance to political party. This is the take home message and this is no liberal spin (except for Republicans who are trying to fool themselves and fool others).
One more thing Numbers,
I think the fundamental mistake you are making is to equate the Republican parrty with conservatism. Keep in mind that the GOP took us from a $236 billion surplus when President Bush took office to a $1.3 trillion deficit, with unpaid-for tax cuts for the wealthy, two very expensive wars, and a huge entitlement expansion with the Medicare prescription drug program. This was hugely irresponsible from a fiscal perspective.
Further, healthcare may not be the only issue that demised Coakley. Rassmusen’s analysis is quite telling that other issues played an imortant role (ie.economy, deficits, jobs)
56% of Massachusetts voters named health care as the most important issue. That suggests it was a big issue, but Democrat Martha Coakley actually won among those voters by a 53% to 46% margin.
· Among the 25% who named the economy as the top issue, Republican Scott Brown came out narrowly ahead, 52% to 47%.
· Only two other issues—national security and taxes—were named as most important by at least five percent (5%) of voters. Brown clearly had the edge on both.
· Among those who named national security as most important, Brown won 67% to 29%.
· For those who saw taxes as number one, it was Brown 87%, Coakley 13%.
The picture gets even murkier when you look at the correlation between approval of the health care plan.
· Among those who Strongly Favor the plan before Congress, Coakley won 97% of the vote.
· Among those who Strongly Oppose the plan, 98% voted for Brown.
· Coakley also picked up 90% of those who Somewhat Favor the plan while Brown was supported by 78% of those who Somewhat Oppose it.
· One key to Brown’s victory is that 41% Strongly Opposed the plan while just 25% Strongly Favored it.
Last February, President Obama listed four priorities for Congress to act upon. Voters in Massachusetts, like voters nationwide, named deficit reduction as the top goal and health care second.
· Among those who named deficit reduction as most important, Brown won 79% to 21%.
· Among those who named health care reform as the top presidential priority, Coakley won 85% to 19%.
· While advocates of reform argue that passing health care reform will reduce the deficit, voters nationwide overwhelmingly believe that the plan will cost more than projected and increase the deficit.
There was a strong correlation between opinions about the president and votes in the Massachusetts race.
· Among those who Strongly Approve of the way Obama is handling the job, Coakley won 96% to three percent (3%).
· Among those who Strongly Disapprove, Brown won 97% to two percent (2%).
· Brown also won the vote from 95% of those who Somewhat Disapprove of the president’s job performance.
· However, among those who only Somewhat Approve of the job he’s doing, Coakley received just 69% of the vote.
Dean;
My timeline is off, I thought it was Clinton who prosecuted the”blind sheik” for the first world trade center bombing? It doesn’t matter though because it continued under Bush.
I do see your point on torture, we should be better than that.
Although I believe that we don’t deploy harsh methods for sadisic reasons but to get information. (there may be individual exceptions)
But terrorists should also not be coddled like shop lifters either.
Right now we have 3 brave Navy Seals being tried for busting the lip
of one of the most wanted terrorists. It happened during his capture.
Like most problems we face, making them political is the problem.
Db
Beware the double standard:
Money from pharmaceutical firms and health care companies is dirty, evil, and corrupting – except when key members of Team Obama are pocketing it. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs derides grass-roots opponents of socialized health care as industry-funded lackeys with questionable motives and conflicts of interest. But what about the corporate shills at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?
Two weeks ago, the White House embraced $150 million in drug industry ads supporting Obamacare. This week, Bloomberg News reported that White House senior adviser and chief campaign strategist David Axelrod’s former public relations firm, AKPD Message and Media, has raked in some $24 million in ad contracts supporting Obamacare – along with another p.r. firm, GMMB, run by other Obama strategists.
The ads are funded by Big Pharma, the AARP, AMA, and the powerhouse Services Employees International Union (whose Purple Shirts dumped $80 million in independent expenditures to get Obama and the Democrat majority elected). In trademark Axelrod-ian style, the special interest coalition adopted faux grass-roots names – first under the banner of “Healthy Economy Now” and more recently as “Americans for Stable Quality Care.”
Tax, Notwithstanding your well-known fixation on Unions and how they destroy all that is good in this Nation, saying that this Court Decision in ANY way “levels the playing field” seems to me wildly inaccurate. Because of past discussions, I assume that you may make faulty conclusions about that previous sentence - that you may assume that I have made assumptions that I have not. I have not. I am merely saying that it is ludicrous to say that this decision “levels the playing field” - the case is about the sheer inequality of power which exists when one ’side’ can out-spend the other side by multiples of HUNDREDS. Period.
Your personal negative feelings toward Unions seem to have distorted your perception on this one. It is pure ‘Spin’ to suggest that this decision makes for equal competition and the only persons I’ve heard even suggest it are the talk radio shock jocks whose very job is to SELL their political positions using whatever means possible, including frequent and extreme SPIN…
Tax:
You wrote: “Money from pharmaceutical firms and health care companies is dirty, evil, and corrupting – except when key members of Team Obama are pocketing it.”
This goes both ways. Federal, and to a lesser extent, State level elected officials, are seemingly influenced by contributions from organizations, corporations, and individuals with deep pockets and lots of influence. They all have their own agendas. Please don;t tell me that any recent legislation or court decisions have changed that or leveled the playing field.
At this point, I can;t align myself with either political party when in comes to state or national politics. You’ve said yourself that the Republican party is not really a bastion of Conservative policies.
I’d like to see term limits and *real* campaign reforms.Compromise seems to be more along the lines of “gimme my pork and I’ll vote for yours” and “what can I do to get re-elected?” I know I’m sounding a bit naive, but when I heard about the Nebraska exception http://www.nowpublic.com/world/sen-ben-nelson-supports-health-care-bill-after-nebraska-deal-2543190.html
it became clearer that too many politicians are more concerned with striking deals than running a government.
Did anyone see PBS last night? Brooksley Born was on. “While leading the CFTC in 1998, Born declared that the unregulated contracts could “pose grave dangers to our economy”.
Con,
I see that you are up to your “sophistry” again.
JK,
You don’t sound naive at all. You sound like you are copping out.
Instead of complaining about the parties, why don’t you join one? I’m sure either of the local town committees would love to have you–and you not only have every right to them, but every reason to make them what you want.
Its not easy. Politics never is. But if people like you don’t take the reigns, others will.
Tax,
I assume that you completely dodge my comment because you have no viable counter-point answer or good example of your own funny Spin on things…
This Court decision absolutely did NOT level any playing field and anyone saying so is engaging in Advertising, Marketing and SPIN…
(Say - Because you engaged in it all the time, didn’t I teach you about the word and meaning of “Sophistry”? It seems on your ‘Top 3 Effective, though dishonest, Tactics’ list - we should Check archives…)
In my personal view I find it preferable to support individuals and actions rather than parties or ideologies.
Thanks,
Kevin
This post represents my personal opinions and in no way should be considered an official act of the BoE or that I am speaking on behalf of the BoE in any way.
Tax:
I have been affiliated with a party for many years. But that’s neither here nor there. My point is that when you get past local politics, party affiliation trumps common sense and appears to force politicians to buy into a false dichotomy.IMHO, local politics often ignores typical party positions - i.e a local Republican official may be more likely to raise taxes tan a Democrat would be. On the State and Federal level, party affiliations seem to determine what an elected official does regardless of the benefits to the citizens.
Tax,
Assuming that “JK” is speaking of the two political parties based on their antics on a national level, I agree with JK. I don’t want anything to do with either party either. That’s not a cop-out - it’s disgust. I don’t think a third party is any answer either. The answer is for more qualified independents to present themselves as candidates if they can survive the onslaught of attacks from both parties. But if enough fair-minded and honest independents could get elected to lessen the death-grip of one of the two parties dominating the political landscape, we might actually get somewhere. It would be nice if the power of both parties could be neutralized by the power of TRUE independent Americans instead. To me, a true independent is not someone who bows out of their party temporarily to run for an office when their party did not nominate them. A true independent either has never been a member of a political party, has not been a registered member of a political party for several years, or at the very least, has an establsihed record (if they’ve held prior office) of voting against their party enough times so as to indicate a balanced perspective on a variety of issues.
But unless any of these independents are also independently wealthy, as well as independent thinkers, they haven’t got a prayer. And so it goes. It’s like having only 2 songs on your ipod and all you can do is alternate which of the 2 tunes you’re hearing over and over and over - never a new song.
Newcomer:
“….2 tunes ..over and over and over-never a new song.” That’s pretty good.
Well Tax, once again, you have said nothing but got everyone fired up. Good job…round and round.
Con,
I guess you missed the part where I said, “I am of leary special interest groups, corporate or union, who play an ever increasing role in determining policy that may not be in the best interest of the country or of the working class taxpayer.”
Now how about an apology?
JK-
Cop out.
Newcomer-
So let me get this straight.
You don’t want to have anything to do with either political party because they “disgust” you and a “third party isn’t an answer either.”
OK.
So what is the answer? IMHO, your comments are mere hyperbolic posturing so that you can wash your hands of having to take any responsibility for what the parties have become.
You see, these parties don’t belong to outsiders. They belong to you and I. And perhaps the reason they have become so seemingly “disgusting” is because you and I haven’t lived up to our end of the deal.
You imply that change must come from outside of the political parties. I disagree.
Did you ever think that maybe change can come from within? Starting with you and I?
Perhaps if all of your constitutional rights were taken away, you would realize how lucky you are to live in this country…and maybe, just maybe, you would then realize that your obligation as an American citizen to protect this great country means more than just being a good consumer and voting every now and then.
Think about it. Don’t be so quick to condemn.
No, Tax.
I don’t think that change can come from within. I think that both parties have been corrupted by special interest money for too long now. How many politicians arrive in Washington owing not one group or special interest any favors these days? On top of that, many then owe their party for also helping to fund their campaign. Independence in its truest form is the key, but the current exhorbitant cost of national campaigns prohibts most true independents from being able to participate.
I DO have an obligation to participate by going to the polls and casting my vote. I do that. There’s no obligation that every American must join one of two political parties in order to exercise their citizenship. There are many ways to speak out and speak up about issues as a concerned citizen without joining a political machine to do it.
Tax:
Now I have to believe you’re just trolling. You didn’t even attempt to explain your insult. Talk about a cop out
Tax,
Apology? I don’t follow, but that’s funny – is there a private little rule-book that calls for an apology if some formula is met? What is the basis for an apology here? If it’s truly due, I’ll give it, but I don’t give, demand or trade apologies as though they are chits – to me they are extraordinary. Yes, I did see your comment about groups who influence policy that “may not be in the best interest” and of whom you are duly “leary” (“leary”? That’s the strongest you feel about it?).
But how does that rather elastic comment warrant an “I’m sorry, Tax”? I had challenged your statement (3rd repeat, now) that the Court Ruling somehow ‘levels the playing field’. Where I come from that phrase means it actually achieves a real Fairness and Equity for the players involved, but to the contrary THIS ruling facilitates inequity and paves the way – clears damn forests if they’re any kind of impediment – for special interests to flat-out purchase campaigns and candidates wholesale while the voices of human taxpayers - voters - are minimized, marginalized into a kind of obscurity.
BTW, your choice of words is also telling in that you not only soften language describing possible undue influence, but you describe “best interest of the country OR of the working class taxpayer” 1) as though taxpayer interests differ from the Country’s interest (by using OR, not AND); and 2) sounding as though taxpayers who are NOT ‘working class’ don’t fit into the discussion at all. Are they rich tax-payers? Are they the Corporations? Is there a meaningful distinction by value judgment to be made between human taxpayers and non-human taxpayers? That’s interesting… (Likely I’ve assumed far too much, but like it or not merely making choices about your language really does inform the underlying message).
But anyway, I can’t apologize just yet. Please break it all down for me why it’s appropriate – I promise to listen fairly.
Sorry JK. I thought (like the Ford dealership) that I wouldn’t have to explain this. But here goes,
First, please don’t misunderstand me. I’m as guilty as the next guy for not doing enough and I certainly understand your frustration with politics. However, bitching about it and never attempting to do anything about it is lazy and it diminishes our credibility.
I believe that grass roots politics has the potential to truly be a moving force in our culture and our political parties. We talked a lot about the Scott Brown election and the role of the Tea Parties, however, at the end of the day, Mr. Brown did not run as an independent “Tea Party” candidate. He ran as a Republican and the result of this election, supported by independent grassroots efforts, will shape the Republican party and the Democratic parties. Not special interest groups, not lobbyists, not corporations (sorry Con), but people like you and I, organized and making our voices heard loud and clear shaped politics. And that’s a beautiful thing.
But we can’t stop there.
Now imagine, if you will, we take it a step further and everyday people start getting involved in party politics. Not merely becoming party affilliates, but becoming members of local town committees (Democratic or Republican Town Committees)-for starters- who put the town first and special interests second, who have a say in which candidates the party endorses, who have a chance to meet face to face with local and state politicians and officials where hard questions can be asked and candid debates can be held. Imagine the influence this could have.
But when we simply dismiss politics as being soured and our pessimism puts our heads in the sand, we accomplish only one thing…we allow others to take control…special interests, lobbyists, corporations, unions,ect
….and they bank on this (no pun intended).
Newcomer,
I’m surprised at your cynicism. You act as if the political parties are somehow separate from the people and therefore the people can somehow be vanquished from taking any responsibility for their government. By believing this and attempting to legitimate it with false indignation, you foolishly relinquish your rights that others would die for.
While I never said that we are obligated to join a political party, it remains true that they offer an excellent conduit for people to have a say that is more substantive than just a vote and more organized then just raising your hand in condemnation. They offer to us the ability to partake in the Democratic process in a way that is organized, substantive, and influential. It may not be perfect. It may be slow. It may be frustrating at times. But its the best we got. To shrug your shoulders and dismiss this opportunity is very sad. It only serves to empower those who DO join for reasons that might not be the right ones…and then develop a party that we look at in disgust.
Therefore, the development of political parties is not just the result of some outsiders. We all share fault, through our apathy, in what the political parties have become.
Con,
There is no rule book for apologizing. Its an intuitive process that requires burying one’s ego and allowing goodwill to take its place.
Certainly you have every right to challenge opinions and arguments. That’s what makes this website so much fun. However, I believe that it is intuitively wrong to berate others without recognizing the full context of their statements. (BTW, I am frequently guilty of this, but have extended my apologies when proven wrong (ask Kevin).
I felt that you were wrongly berating me by taking my comments out of context and wrongly assuming my support for the recent SCOTUS decision. For that I deserve an apology, but if your ego prevents you from doing so, I understand.
In fact, I do have my doubts on the court decision, but I think its foolish at this point to draw any profound conclusions. Perhaps I overreached when I stated that I thought this leveled the playing field, but I’m not so sure yet this is so off base. I’ll accept a recommendation that I do some more homework before making such statements, but I don’t have to accept hostility and petty sarcasm.
Tax,
HOW could I possibly take your words out of context when I never even took them out of your own Quotes!? Truly. You said them; I quoted them and disagreed. C’est tout! All of the sudden I’m fixing to get slapped across the face by your glove and then have to meet at dawn, honor at stake…
It’s so simple I fear I’m missing the entire point, here: You said “levels playing field”; I said “that is not so”. All of the sudden I’m told I berate, am hostile and that I’ve got an ego! Where the hell did any of this come from?
Tax, Tax, Tax - You are back at it. Please take a step away from it and just tell me what you mean by “…but if your ego prevents you from doing so…”? You must have generated flawed assumptions one after another to reach that gem of inaccuracy. Is there some reason for this uncalled-for, personalized and flat-out wrong characterization of my comment and it’s reasonable effect? You see, I’m NOT responsible for it’s unreasonable effect.
Where in the world did my comment convey “hostility and petty sarcasm”? Read my comment and you see that I literally sputtered and tripped over myself to point out that ALL I was saying were the actual words I wrote on the page and no more ought be inferred. I used more words to describe what I WASN’T saying than what I was, all to avoid THIS EXACT KIND OF WILD AND NEGATIVE ASSUMPTIONS BY YOU. How is that hostile or petty sarcasm?
It’s such a small matter I’m shaking my head at my willingness to keep writing - but you seem to have such a wrong impression and I’d rather you hear it one last time before I throw up my hands at your sort of non-sequitur tactic of stringing together nonsense to make wrong assumptions and form half-baked thoughts of hostile sarcasm supporting your sense of victimhood.
I focussed on, addressed and took exception SOLELY to YOUR phrase “levels the playing field” and I vented about the patent unfairness of the decision. Nowhere, no-how and no-way did I insult you, rain hostility or sarcasm.
I did not berate you - (if I were to berate you you would surely know it) and mentioning Unions does not come close, nor does my brilliant and pithy phrasing - perhaps you mistake sharp levity for insult? I don’t know and I’m not interested because I’m not responsible.
You said the words; I could not have taken them out of context, Tax - but I didn’t even take them out of your own Quotes! How does that rate an apology and how does my ego prevent? I have to smile when I even write that phrase ‘my ego’ - you think too much of me. I hardly have an Id, never mind an actual ego. I’d thank you for the compliment, but I’m too confused at this point and fear you’d read it as a direct insult and demand dueling pigeons at dawn…
Con,
Vous etes un chercheur des histoires (et une peu bavarde!) Pourtant, je ne regrette rien. Cepedant, je suis desole, mon amie.
Regardez vous…
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/01/30/the_court_and_campaign_finance_100113.html
Just like I said, Tax…er Mr. Pundit, says a lot of nothing, but gets everyone fired up. And he does a good job. And we all go round and round, about NOTHING.
Chick,
I’m sorry you think that I have said a lot of nothing. To you it might be, but to me, I have put a lot of time and thought into providing my opinion, siting sources, and trying to stimulate conversation on this website. I do this not for my own ego, but rather, because I enjoy it and think its important.
Tax,
Your first statement (in your post #38) summarizing how I feel about this is a bit off…. (see Newcomer’s new article. Admin).
Well, we have placed a lot of hope in Scott Brown. All eyes will be upon him for some time…A lot hangs on him. He, right now, is an extremely important member of our congress. Or will be, rather, when he gets sworn in.
Unfortunately for supporters of Scott Brown I think because of several factors he is bound to disappoint or fail outright….(see Con’s new article. Admin).