"Anything you can do, I can do better..."

[Darth Wong]

Any sort of campaign finance-laws are, however, a violation of free speech, and I've always been disgusted by McCain's willingness to support them. We should eliminate every single one of them--including those from the seventies--and eliminate the matching money as well. Simply enact a full disclosure law and make sure that there are requirements for the disclosed information about donors to become easily available. Then anyone can donate as much money as they want to a candidate... And any voter can find out about it, too.

You are being naive. This is the same sort of reasoning which is employed by people who claim that regulation of corporate accounting is not necessary because investors can always check out the numbers themselves and anomalies will be obvious. The fact is that people are too damned stupid to do that, and I know you will blast me for arguing that the people don't know what's best for them because that's supposedly a horrible socialist mentality, but you can't change the fact that it's true.

Most people are too goddamned ignorant to notice that a candidate has been bought and paid for. And bribing somebody is only "free speech" in looney-land. "Free speech" is expressing your opinion, not paying somebody. It is the most abused term that I know of.

[Joe]

Making political contributions is articulating your voice in a way that it will actually be heard. How is that not free speech?

The ACLU agrees, by the way.

[Joe]

I could also point out that the Constitution only gives the government the power to regulate elections, not campaigns.

[Iceberg]

Any sort of campaign finance-laws are, however, a violation of free speech, and I've always been disgusted by McCain's willingness to support them. We should eliminate every single one of them--including those from the seventies--and eliminate the matching money as well. Simply enact a full disclosure law and make sure that there are requirements for the disclosed information about donors to become easily available. Then anyone can donate as much money as they want to a candidate... And any voter can find out about it, too.

You are being naive. This is the same sort of reasoning which is employed by people who claim that regulation of corporate accounting is not necessary because investors can always check out the numbers themselves and anomalies will be obvious. The fact is that people are too damned stupid to do that, and I know you will blast me for arguing that the people don't know what's best for them because that's supposedly a horrible socialist mentality, but you can't change the fact that it's true.

Hell, it's not just that people are "too damn stupid" - sufficiently deceitful people will always have an advantage over honest people because there's only so much deceit that an honest person can adequately prepare for.

After looking at a sample of Enron's books, my dad said that if he was in charge of Enron's accountants, he'd have fired the lot of them because those numbers were totally unreadable - and dad passed the CPA exam on his first try and has 25 years of experience in the field of accounting. If an experienced Certified Public Accountant can't read allegedly "clear" corporate books, something is seriously awry.

If campaign finance were totally deregulated with a full disclosure law emplaced, you can bet that your average politician's campaign books would look like Enron's ledger in no time flat.

[Darth Wong]

Making political contributions is articulating your voice in a way that it will actually be heard. How is that not free speech?

Bullshit. It is paying somebody else who will get things done for you. Free speech is writing or speaking. Please look up "speech" in a dictionary.

PS. Do not appeal to the ACLU's authority. Appeals to authority don't cut it here.

[Joe]

Making political contributions is articulating your voice in a way that it will actually be heard. How is that not free speech?

Bullshit. It is paying somebody else who will get things done for you. Free speech is writing or speaking. Please look up "speech" in a dictionary.

PS. Do not appeal to the ACLU's authority. Appeals to authority don't cut it here.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. Buckley v. Valeo clearly held that campaign contributions were protected under the First.

[Iceberg]

Frankly, this "Dean is unelectable" bit that's been traveling around on Faux News and M$NBC smacks of fear - fear of going up against a well-organized political campaign that involves the "little men" on the ground, who actually work for a living and can only afford to contribute $50 or $100 at a time.

Experience time.

To be sure, Rudy Boschwitz laughed at Paul Wellstone back in 1990. Wellstone and his old-fashioned campaign, going from town to town in a battered green bus, walking from house to house shaking hands and getting to know people. But you know what? That campaign style won Wellstone the election, because it got people feeling like they were personally involved with the campaign. And when Boschwitz made his return trip against Wellstone in 1996, he did it with angry television ads that accused Wellstone of being "too liberal," "super-liberal" and "embarrassingly liberal" - instead of dealing with the issues. They did debate - and Boschwitz held his own, winning a few and losing a few - but in the voting booth, what the voters remembered was Rudy Boschwitz's attack ads calling hard-working Paul things like "embarrassingly liberal" and "Senator Wellfare." As a result, Boschwitz lost his election bid in a minor landslide.

Fast forward to 2003. Paul Wellstone is dead (and the Senate is much poorer for his loss), but the style of his campaign lives on in Howard Dean's campaign - only Dean has taken the campaign to the next logical level, and he's getting the word out on the Internet, the province of the young and the idealistic. And instead of calling him "embarrassingly liberal," Karl Rove and associates are calling Dean "unelectable" - but they're making the same mistake as Boschwitz did in 1996, and attacking the man instead of debating the issues.

The people will remember in the voting booth, and history repeats itself for those who forget its lessons.

[RedImperator]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Reading Karl Rove's playbook much, Marina?

Radio Earth to Iceberg: Just because you think Dean is the bee's knees, doesn't mean the rest of the electorate is suddenly going to go hard left. If Dean is nominated, he's going to join the list of unabashed liberal Democrat throwaway candidates who got smacked around by the Republicans.

[MKSheppard]

The people will remember in the voting booth, and history repeats itself for those who forget its lessons.

Except that no American president has ever lost an election during wartime.

[Iceberg]

The people will remember in the voting booth, and history repeats itself for those who forget its lessons.

Except that no American president has ever lost an election during wartime.

1: First time for everything.
2: Ever watch "Wag the Dog," Shep? You're looking at its practical application.

[Sea Skimmer]

Except that no American president has ever lost an election during wartime.

However they have died not long after reelection a couple times.

[RedImperator]

Frankly, this "Dean is unelectable" bit that's been traveling around on Faux News and M$NBC smacks of fear - fear of going up against a well-organized political campaign that involves the "little men" on the ground, who actually work for a living and can only afford to contribute $50 or $100 at a time.

Experience time.

To be sure, Rudy Boschwitz laughed at Paul Wellstone back in 1990. Wellstone and his old-fashioned campaign, going from town to town in a battered green bus, walking from house to house shaking hands and getting to know people. But you know what? That campaign style won Wellstone the election, because it got people feeling like they were personally involved with the campaign. And when Boschwitz made his return trip against Wellstone in 1996, he did it with angry television ads that accused Wellstone of being "too liberal," "super-liberal" and "embarrassingly liberal" - instead of dealing with the issues. They did debate - and Boschwitz held his own, winning a few and losing a few - but in the voting booth, what the voters remembered was Rudy Boschwitz's attack ads calling hard-working Paul things like "embarrassingly liberal" and "Senator Wellfare." As a result, Boschwitz lost his election bid in a minor landslide.

Fast forward to 2003. Paul Wellstone is dead (and the Senate is much poorer for his loss), but the style of his campaign lives on in Howard Dean's campaign - only Dean has taken the campaign to the next logical level, and he's getting the word out on the Internet, the province of the young and the idealistic. And instead of calling him "embarrassingly liberal," Karl Rove and associates are calling Dean "unelectable" - but they're making the same mistake as Boschwitz did in 1996, and attacking the man instead of debating the issues.

The people will remember in the voting booth, and history repeats itself for those who forget its lessons.

Except this isn't Minnesota. I have no doubt Dean will win the liberal strongholds, but he's going to have his ass handed to him by the voters in the South and the West. He'll probably lose borderline states like Pennsylvania that went to Gore, because you don't win Presidential elections in the United States by appealing to the "young, idealistic" left. You win the Presidency by winning the center. Carter won, Clinton won and Gore nearly won by going after the moderates. McGovern couldn't win by going left, Mondale couldn't do it, Dukakis couldn't do it, and Dean can't do it.

[Joe]

Iceberg, shut your pie hole. You know the Bush administration had other motives than just "wagging the dog" for going to Iraq so don't pretend otherwise.

[Iceberg]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Reading Karl Rove's playbook much, Marina?

Radio Earth to Iceberg: Just because you think Dean is the bee's knees, doesn't mean the rest of the electorate is suddenly going to go hard left. If Dean is nominated, he's going to join the list of unabashed liberal Democrat throwaway candidates who got smacked around by the Republicans.

Right. An unabashed liberal who took a state in desperate budget trouble when he entered office and handed off the biggest budget surplus in his state's history to his successor when he left.

I think the US could quite easily do with that kind of liberal, especially when we're looking at adding a trillion dollars - or more (remember, Dubya's been consistently lowballing his deficit estimates) - to the national debt before the 2004 elections.

[MKSheppard]

2: Ever watch "Wag the Dog," Shep? You're looking at its practical application.

Actually no, that was Kosovo and that Asprin Factory in Yemen.

[Iceberg]

Iceberg, shut your pie hole. You know the Bush administration had other motives than just "wagging the dog" for going to Iraq so don't pretend otherwise.

And don't pretend that if the Bush Administration starts another war in the next twelve months (we're supposedly not at war right now), that it won't torpedo their chances of re-election.

[Joe]

And don't pretend that if the Bush Administration starts another war in the next twelve months (we're supposedly not at war right now), that it won't torpedo their chances of re-election.

This is relevant to the discussion how? There is no war other than possibly Liberia on the horizon.

[RedImperator]

Right. An unabashed liberal who took a state in desperate budget trouble when he entered office and handed off the biggest budget surplus in his state's history to his successor when he left.

I think the US could quite easily do with that kind of liberal, especially when we're looking at adding a trillion dollars - or more (remember, Dubya's been consistently lowballing his deficit estimates) - to the national debt before the 2004 elections.

The fact that YOU LIKE HIM doesn't make it any more likely that he'll win. He's a hard-left, Nancy Pelosi liberal who will have NO APPEAL among moderates, especially against a sitting president who, buffoon or not, deficit or not, won two wars and by next year should be presiding over a visibly recovering economy.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Frankly, this "Dean is unelectable" bit that's been traveling around on Faux News and M$NBC smacks of fear - fear of going up against a well-organized political campaign that involves the "little men" on the ground, who actually work for a living and can only afford to contribute $50 or $100 at a time.

So you meant the managers and accountants, designers and engineers who put in days long, long over normal working hours don't work for a living? People who pull in a few hundred thousand a year don't work for a living simply because they're wealthy? Who does work for a living, then? Union workers at heavy industry jobs? Okay, fair enough--but how many of those are left? That leaves, what? A bunch of kids at service jobs? Those aren't "real workers", they're either people trying to become "real workers" or they're the wasted of society, and either way aren't particularly relevant yet and generally prove it by not voting in great numbers, something which isn't likely to change much soon.

Experience time.


The people will remember in the voting booth, and history repeats itself for those who forget its lessons.

No experience for the state that elected Jesse "the body" Ventura as its governor will ever be applicable to the nation as a whole.

[Iceberg]

Except this isn't Minnesota. I have no doubt Dean will win the liberal strongholds, but he's going to have his ass handed to him by the voters in the South and the West. He'll probably lose borderline states like Pennsylvania that went to Gore, because you don't win Presidential elections in the United States by appealing to the "young, idealistic" left. You win the Presidency by winning the center. Carter won, Clinton won and Gore nearly won by going after the moderates. McGovern couldn't win by going left, Mondale couldn't do it, Dukakis couldn't do it, and Dean can't do it.

The economy and ESPECIALLY the Federal budget are going to be big campaign issues next year. See those half-trillion dollar budget deficits that the Bush Administration admits are on the plate for the next two years? Those are huge boxing gloves screaming at the face of Bush's re-election chances.

Besides, it's plenty early yet - the general election isn't for another 17 months. Plenty of time for Dean to pursue the center AFTER he's secured the support of the party faithful. First things first - if you don't get your legs under you with the people who SHOULD be supporting you, you don't have a prayer of getting the support of the people who may or may not support you.

[Darth Wong]

Making political contributions is articulating your voice in a way that it will actually be heard. How is that not free speech?

Bullshit. It is paying somebody else who will get things done for you. Free speech is writing or speaking. Please look up "speech" in a dictionary.

PS. Do not appeal to the ACLU's authority. Appeals to authority don't cut it here.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. Buckley v. Valeo clearly held that campaign contributions were protected under the First.

You respond to a dismissal of one appeal to authority with another appeal to authority? Do you not recognize a fallacy even when it's pointed out to you? I was not under the impression that this thread was posted in order to solicit legalistic bullshit.

Provide some justification for your claim that paying people is "speech". If influencing others in any conceivable way can be regarded as "speech", then your dictionary is different from mine.

[Iceberg]

Experience time.


The people will remember in the voting booth, and history repeats itself for those who forget its lessons.

No experience for the state that elected Jesse "the body" Ventura as its governor will ever be applicable to the nation as a whole.

Appeal to ridicule is a fallacy and you goddamn well know it, Marina.

[Joe]

If you want to talk about voters who "work for a living" versus those who don't, keep in mind that a Republican voter is more likely than a Democratic voter to pay higher federal income taxes.

[Hamel]

Any sort of campaign finance-laws are, however, a violation of free speech, and I've always been disgusted by McCain's willingness to support them. We should eliminate every single one of them--including those from the seventies--and eliminate the matching money as well. Simply enact a full disclosure law and make sure that there are requirements for the disclosed information about donors to become easily available. Then anyone can donate as much money as they want to a candidate... And any voter can find out about it, too.

You are being naive. This is the same sort of reasoning which is employed by people who claim that regulation of corporate accounting is not necessary because investors can always check out the numbers themselves and anomalies will be obvious. The fact is that people are too damned stupid to do that, and I know you will blast me for arguing that the people don't know what's best for them because that's supposedly a horrible socialist mentality, but you can't change the fact that it's true.

Most people are too goddamned ignorant to notice that a candidate has been bought and paid for. And bribing somebody is only "free speech" in looney-land. "Free speech" is expressing your opinion, not paying somebody. It is the most abused term that I know of.

It's sad that some of the same people who viciously object to health care being a human right view shady campaign donations as a right from the first amendment.

[Joe]

You respond to a dismissal of one appeal to authority with another appeal to authority? Do you not recognize a fallacy even when it's pointed out to you? I was not under the impression that this thread was posted in order to solicit legalistic bullshit.

Provide some justification for your claim that paying people is "speech". If influencing others in any conceivable way can be regarded as "speech", then your dictionary is different from mine.

Not appeal to authority, appeal to fact. Political contributions are recognized as speech within the U.S. government. Neither your opinion your mine are relevant to the fact that political contributions are legally protected speech.

And I'm sorry if you don't want to discuss "legalistic bullshit," but I am not aware of how discussing campaign finance reform law is possible without discussing legalism.