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

[Iceberg]

I already did justify it. Making political contributions is a way that individuals can articulate their voice in a way that it will be actually be heard. It would be nice if they didn't have to, I will admit (and perhaps if the government didn't control our lives to the extent that it does, it wouldn't be necessary).

I thought there already was a way for people to speak their mind about who they think should win an election in a way that is heard and recorded already built into the system that is very simple indeed. When the polls open, go down to where the booths are held and push down the little lever next to the name of the candidate that you support.

Ah, but that way you don't get to use your money to have a bigger voice than the next guy. Remember, that disproportionality is a fundamental "right"

Marina's claims aside, how many middle-class families are actually willing to put down $2,000 or $4,000 - several months of car, insurance and mortgage payments, or a semester's tuition at a public university - on one luncheon or dinner? Not damn many, I'll wager (Mike, am I right?) Only somebody who has a LOT of excess money to hand (i.e. the "rich") can afford such a luxury.

$2,000 a plate luncheons are pretty much the exclusive province of the rich and well-connected.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Ah, but that way you don't get to use your money to have a bigger voice than the next guy. Remember, that disproportionality is a fundamental "right"

Of course it is. If the little guy wants to have a bigger influence in campaigns, let him go out and become a wealthy individual through hard work, something that our society seems to shy away from.

Furthermore, corrupt candidates, I contend, can be properly revealed if the law is properly written. As for an intelligent populace? One cannot expect this; but then, the entire system is out of balance as it is. The people should not have so much power, because, as you say, the people cannot be expected to be intelligent in great numbers. The power of the people must be balanced with other powers--those of the States, for example.

The real damage to the American system was done by the seventeenth amendment, and things like campaign finance reform are just ineffectual attempts to stop our slide into chaos, ignoring the root cause. That root cause is that our balance of powers is becoming progressively disordered, and that the Populares, the Populists, are gaining more and more power. How many anti-corruption laws of a similar vein were passed to utterly no effect in the Late Roman Republic? One rather loses count.

fixed

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Marina's claims aside, how many middle-class families are actually willing to put down $2,000 or $4,000 - several months of car, insurance and mortgage payments, or a semester's tuition at a public university - on one luncheon or dinner? Not damn many, I'll wager (Mike, am I right?) Only somebody who has a LOT of excess money to hand (i.e. the "rich") can afford such a luxury.

$2,000 a plate luncheons are pretty much the exclusive province of the rich and well-connected.

Read this article at the Washington Times if you would.

[Iceberg]

The Washington Times, Marina!? Don't make me laugh! The Washington Times is roughly on the same level as the New York Post.

I knew you were willing to go to some lengths to prove your point, but please, next time restrict your op-ed hunt to real newspapers, not Moonie rags.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The Washington Times, Marina!? Don't make me laugh! The Washington Times is roughly on the same level as the New York Post.

I knew you were willing to go to some lengths to prove your point, but please, next time restrict your op-ed hunt to real newspapers, not Moonie rags.

At least they haven't had the make-up-entire-story scandals which have plagued your quote "real newspapers" unquote.

[Iceberg]

So in what way, exactly, is Dean "too liberal" to be elected?

I've heard some awfully contradictory claims - like being an elitist while engendering a public groundswell not often seen in recent electoral politics, or like being a "tax and spend" liberal while running the only state that still has a balanced budget (despite the fact that Vermont is the only state in the Union that hasn't added a balanced budget statute or constitutional amendment).

It sounds more like Dean is too liberal for Bush and Co., not for the American people.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

like being an elitist while engendering a public groundswell not often seen in recent electoral politics,

Julius Caesar was a member of a Patrician family who played to the crowd, too. It's not without precedent.

or like being a "tax and spend" liberal while running the only state that still has a balanced budget (despite the fact that Vermont is the only state in the Union that hasn't added a balanced budget statute or constitutional amendment).

If you tax heavily enough, you can balance your budget--it says nothing, however, for economic success, and Vermont has lost massive amounts of its manufacturing industry, for example, recently (a fact which Lieberman, for that matter, brought up when he visited the State). Balancing the budget is an overblown achievement; there can easily be other, more important things, and in Vermont these are not necessarily done.

[Iceberg]

like being an elitist while engendering a public groundswell not often seen in recent electoral politics,

Julius Caesar was a member of a Patrician family who played to the crowd, too. It's not without precedent.

With your low opinion of the general public, Marina, I really oughtn't to be surprised here.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

With your low opinion of the general public, Marina, I really oughtn't to be surprised here.

There are real comparisons between our current situation and the steady but slow decline of the Roman Republic, though of course the fact that we have a written, rather than unwritten, constitution, has slowed our decay.

[Andrew J.]

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

1. Do not disrespect Ventura, for He is the God of Color Commentary. He's even better than Bobby Heenan, if you can believe that.

2. Ronald Reagan.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

With your low opinion of the general public, Marina, I really oughtn't to be surprised here.

Furthermore, I must add that I greatly respect the average wage-earner, who goes out and plies some brute-force job somewhere to bring home not much at all for their family.

However, I realize that, sadly, in large numbers people have never been, and never will be, all that reasonable. This is not some reason, then, to deny them any rights. It is a reason, instead, to balance their rights with the rights of other aspects of society.

[Joe]

The average, low-income wage earner is qualified and competent to run his own life. But he's not qualified and capable to pick politicians to run the lives of others.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The average, low-income wage earner is qualified and competent to run his own life. But he's not qualified and capable to pick politicians to run the lives of others.

I think that's a bit extreme. Such an individual, I'd argue, is just going to be interested in regional issues--and probably not even those of an entire states. Really, the House of the People was intended to be, and should have always been, only the House of Representatives, and needs to be balanced out by an appointed Senate, just like the Senate was before 1912, with the Electoral College handling the Presidency.

[Joe]

I'm not saying that they shouldn't be allowed to vote. I'm just saying that they can't be trusted with political power (neither can the rich, for that matter). No class of people is inherently fit to rule. Returning to state appointment of Senators would balance this, like you say, but that's never going to happen (anyone who advocates such a move will be Borked to the nth degree).

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I'm not saying that they shouldn't be allowed to vote. I'm just saying that they can't be trusted with political power (neither can the rich, for that matter). No class of people is inherently fit to rule. Returning to state appointment of Senators would balance this, like you say, but that's never going to happen (anyone who advocates such a move will be Borked to the nth degree).

Ah, quite so. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

[Worlds Spanner]

I'm a little put-off by this 'fighting a war' stuff and the the 'no wartime pres. has lost.'

I just don't see the "war on terrorism" as a war, at least not on the scale that it makes its administration invincible. The individual actions being taken, Afghanistan and Iraq, etc, are not even on the scale of the Gulf War, let alone serious conflicts where there was significant danger to US forces and goals, like WWI/II, Korea, Vietnam.

The current situation is more of a series of police actions: The US military is more than capable of winning ANY individual conflict EASILY. What we're seeing in president Bush's tactics is NOT a strong wartime leader who can't be disloged holding everything together. We're seeing an armchair general and politican overextending the resources of his country in a series of glorified police actions and regime overthrows, possibly on false pretences and certainly without giving enough thought to the long-term ramifications of his actions.

I think that calling Bush a war-time president is an insult to great men who were presidents in much more difficult times, like FDR and Eisenhower. I'll leave Vietnam alone since it was and is so controversial.

[Stravo]

Addressing the speech and contribution issue, one can argue that as a Representative Democracy our candidates speak for us, thus by contributing to their campign we are accepting that this representative is them closest we're going to get to our own ideals and notions. We are execersing speech by saying here's my money to support this person who will in turn speak FOR me in the government.

As to the issue of rich vs. poor (gotta love that democratic class warfare) since when do rich people lose their own right to support a campaign just because they are rich? If Donald Trump believes that a particular candidate can best represent him and his business interests then why should he not be able to contribute to that candidate or has success earned a big duct tape across the mouth for the "elite"?

How is a corporation supporting a candidate because he promises to ease restrictions and make their business more successful and porfitable (which BTW puts money in the pockets of investors rich and poor alike) ANY different than little old Lady Henderson voting for a candidate that will insitute a noise ordinance to stop those damned kids from making so much noise at night?

Or are we going into the territory that the rich are eeeviiilllll. And that NOBLE (but stuipid and doesn't know what's best for him) working class Joe has a bigger share of the pie because...well...he's just poor.

This is a representative democracy and EVERYONE gets to be heard, and if you don't like the rich having a voice, why are you living in a Capitalist society?

And Iceberg, I PRAY, Fervently PRAY that Dean gets the nomination so I can watch Mondale part deux.

[LadyTevar]

To paraphrase the movie Seabiscuit,

"We've got a candidate who's too short, odds that are too long, and I'm too stupid to know the difference!"

Ahem...

"The Horse is too short, the Jockey's too tall, the trainer's too old, and I'm too stupid to know the difference!"

[Joe]

To paraphrase the movie Seabiscuit,

"We've got a candidate who's too short, odds that are too long, and I'm too stupid to know the difference!"

Ahem...

"The Horse is too short, the Jockey's too tall, the trainer's too old, and I'm too stupid to know the difference!"

To veer off-topic a bit, Seabiscuit is a wonderful film. Highly recommended for those who haven't seen it yet.

[MKSheppard]

I knew you were willing to go to some lengths to prove your point, but please, next time restrict your op-ed hunt to real newspapers, not Moonie rags.

I dare you to go ahead and say that to Bill Gertz. That man is feared
within the DoD for his seeming knowledge of who did what, where,
and when...

That said, the Washington Compost is good for lining the ferret cage.

[Col. Crackpot]

And Iceberg, I PRAY, Fervently PRAY that Dean gets the nomination so I can watch Mondale part deux.

Wouldn't that actually be McGovern part quatre?

[Joe]

The Washington Times, Marina!? Don't make me laugh! The Washington Times is roughly on the same level as the New York Post.

I knew you were willing to go to some lengths to prove your point, but please, next time restrict your op-ed hunt to real newspapers, not Moonie rags.

Oh, please, you think you're going to just throw away figures that completely blow your crackpot theories out out of the water simply because they happen to be found in the Washington Times? I agree with you on next to nothing but I expect more of you than this.

However, since you are obviously too immature to accept Marina's article, here is the list of campaign donors cited in this article, from the source.

[Iceberg]

Given that President Bush cut taxes $350 billion (he wanted to cut much deeper - to the tune of $600-700 billion - but Congress resisted) even though he was already facing deep budget deficits from 9/11, the War on Terrorism and now the Iraq War, how do you expect him to balance the goddamn budget? Don't say "cutting government programs," that's a cheap nonanswer, since no president since Kennedy has cut back the government one bit, and Bush II has increased the government over 6% during his time in office. Will he balance the budget at all? Will he even ATTEMPT to balance it? Or will he simply pass the federal debt on to the next President in 2005 or 2009? Current indications suggest the latter.

Banks are going to stop dealing with the US government sooner or later. You can't keep borrowing money when you already owe 70% of your annual productivity. If the government doesn't stop borrowing money, it will go bankrupt and that will be the end of the United States of America - and the Republicans have proven by their huge deficit spending that they don't have the guts to make the hard choices that might alienate voters but WILL save our country.

[MKSheppard]

Banks are going to stop dealing with the US government sooner or later. You can't keep borrowing money when you already owe 70% of your annual productivity. If the government doesn't stop borrowing money, it will go bankrupt and that will be the end of the United States of America - and the Republicans have proven by their huge deficit spending that they don't have the guts to make the hard choices that might alienate voters but WILL save our country.

Yes yes we know that this is going to happen sooner or later....but you
seem to forget that your idol, Clinton, never really did balance the budget,
but only "balanced" it by using tax revenue projections and by dipping into
the Social Security fund.

He had eight fucking years with which to balance it, and about four
years in which any cuts would have been enthuastically parroted by
the Republican Majority in congress.

[MKSheppard]

Oh yeah, and he wasn't dealing with a global war.