Third Way Not So Bad | 41 comments (41 topical, 0 hidden)
I wrote to both of my Senators (none / 0)

Bingaman (D) and Domenici (R).  Bingaman has voted against FISA right down the line.  I love him for that, even though he is against impeachment.

Domenici, of course, is literally demented (although I've forgotten the name of his medical condition) and due to retire.  His  ;staffer replied "thanks-for-your-conce rn-I'll-consider-your-comme nts", and then Domenici voted to destroy the rule of law.

Republicans don't listen to their constituents.  They listen to their contributors.

by Juarez Traveller on 02/17/2008 02:43:05 PM EST

[ Parent ]
To be fair (none / 0)
You wrote "Republicans don't listen to their constituents.  They listen to their contributors."

To be fair, that increasingly applies to Democrats as well (hello DLC). 

The answer of course is publicly funded elections.  Because that's the only way to make them listen to their contributors *and* their constituents.  Any fool that would argue against that is either incredibly corrupt, stupid or ignorant (possibly even 2 out of 3).

by Tom Hanc on 02/17/2008 03:20:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Wow! What an interesting idea! (none / 0)

Hmm.  "Publicly financed campaigns".  That sure sounds like it would get at least some of the corruption out of politics.  Haven't I heard someone talking about that?  I wonder if there are any candidates who would consider it.

Oh! Of course.

BARACK OBAMA!

The revolution starts with publicly financed campaigns.

by Juarez Traveller on 02/17/2008 03:39:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Trust me I know (none / 0)
that's a big reason why I'm for Obama over Hillary. I also got pissed at Michael S. the other day when he was co-hosting.  He said public financing, while important, was a "pet project" or something like that.

He said it's not something we'll feel the effects of day to day like healthcare or Iraq.

I was incredulous that he would say something so nonsensical, especially since he's a smart guy.  The fact is that corrupt/pro-industry/lobbyi st sponsored politicians effect EVERYTHING ELSE, directly or indirectly, including Iraq and especially healthcare.

Far too many people seem to forget this for some reason and think "yeah, it'd be nice to have public financing but it's the end all, be all".  And of course it's true it's not a panacea, but it is by the far the one thing that can dramatically improve the quality of the representatives from *both* parties over a relatively short perdiod of time.

And that ultimately means a better democracy that functions for all of us.

by Tom Hanc on 02/17/2008 04:53:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I know that you know :) (none / 0)

I was kind of surprised at that "pet project" remark, too.  But I think he was distinguishing between legislation that has effects that would be immediately visible to Joe American when he goes to get his mail or to pay his bills versus something more subtle.

There is no doubt that public financing of campaigns would cause a drastic realignment of political relationships.  But Joe American can hold a refund check in his hand.

One thing though: if we do get public financing of campaigns, we're going to have to drastically improve the knowledge and ability to reason of our citizens.  We've been able to let our educational system lag behind other countries with more politically involved citizens because we've been letting corporations make our political decisions, and they benefit if we know only enough to be productive workers.

"New math" ain't gonna cut it anymore.  We're going to have to teach why, not merely how, and that is how the revolution will continue.

--------------------------- -----------------
The revolution begins with public financing of campaigns.

by Juarez Traveller on 02/17/2008 08:05:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I know that I shouldn't be at this point... (none / 0)
...but I am continually amazed at the extent of your inability to grasp any topic at all.

Public financing of campaigns is an entirely different issue than what the Supreme Court addressed and stops no one from speaking or from spending their money anyway that they want to.  It has to do with from whom a candidate or a party can accept contributions: no one at all, if she or he wants public funds.  And those funds would match anything that someone using private funds would try to spend.

And that would be "like shooting fish in a barrel":

"My opponent has taken contributions from [freedom-hating-source] who, as everyone knows, wants to [description-of-a-painful-s ex-act-but-without-Vaseline ] you. But I owe [freedom-hating-source] nothing!"

But if you aren't a candidate you can buy all the newspaper ad space or infomercial time you want with money from any source whatsoever.  And I don't have much of a problem with that (although the Supreme Court's finding that money is speech obviously is a logical fallacy).  Your candidate, however, will be prohibited from coordinating with you, which means that running such independent ads would be a very foolish thing to do unless you want to risk causing your candidate to lose.

By the way: Congress has passed many laws abridging the freedom of speech in direct contradiction to the First Amendment but with, apparently, a compelling state interest (an argument that was not made in Buckley v. Valeo, thank goodness).  But, as I said, that has nothing to do with public financing of campaigns.  YOU will still be able to buy airtime supporting your favorite totalitarian dictator.

Jeezus Ken do some goddamned research on the right topic f'cryinoutloud!  This is getting ridiculous.

by Juarez Traveller on 02/17/2008 11:21:53 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Not talkin' about FREE speech. (none / 0)

Talkin' about PAID ADVERTISING. Advertising has to hold itself to higher standards of truthiness to avoid lawsuits.

I can't believe you would give money to the swift liars. Do you belong to the 700 Club, too?

by MedfordTim on 02/17/2008 11:25:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Third Way Not So Bad | 41 comments (41 topical, 0 hidden)