Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

[Old Pio]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

You crazy winguts! With your "Pledge of Allegiance", causing a ruckus!
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/0ktfdxs5efE?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/0ktfdxs5efE?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

I'm flashing on "Runaway Jury." Loved how the Dem said "we were able to accomplish it without any incidents." What the h*e*l*l was he talking about? It takes about 20 seconds. Not long enough for much of an "incident" you ask me. But it is a relief to know at least those folks were able to get through it with no punching, stabbing, shooting, or wrestling of dykes in blond wigs to the ground. I'm impressed.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

I prefer lemonade.

But if you think Soros is the only billionaire to spend his money on politics you're obviously into the hard stuff.

Maybe I'm not alone on this...but we really need to get big money out of the campaigning process. This includes unions and corporations. It also includes big chunks of cash delivered by individuals and 527s.

Now many would claim that this goes against the Constitution as its a violation of free speech. But it seems to me Democracy is also in the Constitution. People are not free to say anything they want whenever they want already (see airplanes). IMO a healthy Democracy is more important than allowing money weighted voices.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

The point is that you only criticize Soros for spending oodles of dough on ballot initiatives etc. Strangely enough, you and your ilk never seem to criticize Scaife or anyone on the right for doing the exact same thing.

"My ilk?" C****t, who writes your material? I'm far less concerned about those worthies you mentioned than I am that three of the top five "outside" organizations funding spots in this cycle are unions--one of them made up of public employees. And your whining about unfair spots to Democrats and "moderate Republicans" is astonishingly one sided. I think we can agree that at least on the congressional level, almost every ad run by every candidate is dishonest garbage. "Congressman Y's wife is a well known thespian," etc. Just stop trying to sell the bizarre notion that only people you don't like do it. They all do it, more's the pity.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Maybe I'm not alone on this...but we really need to get big money out of the campaigning process. This includes unions and corporations. It also includes big chunks of cash delivered by individuals and 527s.

Now many would claim that this goes against the Constitution as its a violation of free speech. But it seems to me Democracy is also in the Constitution. People are not free to say anything they want whenever they want already (see airplanes). IMO a healthy Democracy is more important than allowing money weighted voices.

Won't do any good. The US is going through the same cycles all empires go through. It's only a matter of time. It is ironic though how much money there is out there for this utter crap and yet we're broke as a nation. And no one on either side has any reason to fix it.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Maybe I'm not alone on this...but we really need to get big money out of the campaigning process. This includes unions and corporations. It also includes big chunks of cash delivered by individuals and 527s.

Now many would claim that this goes against the Constitution as its a violation of free speech. But it seems to me Democracy is also in the Constitution. People are not free to say anything they want whenever they want already (see airplanes). IMO a healthy Democracy is more important than allowing money weighted voices.

It's not like you can't have both though. To me, the solution would seem to be a Constitutional amendment.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Won't do any good. The US is going through the same cycles all empires go through. It's only a matter of time. It is ironic though how much money there is out there for this utter crap and yet we're broke as a nation. And no one on either side has any reason to fix it.

You know what percentage of the national debt would be paid down if we devoted all campaign spending to that purpose?

Me, either - not sure I know a number that low...

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

You know what percentage of the national debt would be paid down if we devoted all campaign spending to that purpose?

Me, either - not sure I know a number that low...

Sure. Make that argument. But, the stuff the tea party wants cut is that same low number. Nobody has the balls to cut the big number and if you do you don't get elected. I still think its ironic and apparently you don't because you don't think its that much money. But, glory be that's the money that everyone spends all their time whining about.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Amount of money spent in this campaign = $1,530,000,000. That includes both by candidates themselves and by evil scary outside groups.
National debt right now = $ 13,649,000,000,000
So, as a percent, that's .0112096124%. Nice theory though.

Also, there are a few who do have the balls to cut the big stuff, like Paul Ryan (whatever you think of his positions, he at least has a plan). But Paul Krugman refers to Ryan as a "flim-flam man".
Or House Dems like Earl Pomeroy totally fudge his numbers to scare the electorate.

With mindless opposition like that, would you put a plan out there?

Edit: Just had a thought, that campaign spending number might not include Governor's and other statewide races. So the number is admittedly a little higher. Still, smaller than a drop in the bucket.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

With mindless opposition like that, would you put a plan out there?

Of course I would. If the rule was no plan until everybody on the other side plays it straight, nobody would ever release a plan.

Mindless Opposition is a good name for (1) a band, and (2) the GOP the last 2 years, so I wouldn't get all high and mighty about this.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

It's not like you can't have both though. To me, the solution would seem to be a Constitutional amendment.

I'd take on that fight but I don't think it's necessary. Drowning out all other voices with a 120 dB loudspeaker is not what the Founders had in mind by "free speech." The whole idea of this experiment was to create a system that was both fair and had widespread support, and all the corporatization of politics has done is erode both. We're back to feudal estates; they just say Exxon instead of Lord Hifalutin.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Of course I would. If the rule was no plan until everybody on the other side plays it straight, nobody would ever release a plan.

Mindless Opposition is a good name for (1) a band, and (2) the GOP the last 2 years, so I wouldn't get all high and mighty about this.

Sure. But if you break it down to a basic rosy-eyed level, people want to be elected to office to influence public policy right?
So, say you have an excellent plan for social security reform that you want to put in place when elected. But obviously you have to get elected first. So why take the risk of putting a plan out there when you know it's going to be demonizied and outright lied about, and risk yourself not even making it to Washington at all?

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

I'd take on that fight but I don't think it's necessary. Drowning out all other voices with a 120 dB loudspeaker is not what the Founders had in mind by "free speech." The whole idea of this experiment was to create a system that was both fair and had widespread support, and all the corporatization of politics has done is erode both. We're back to feudal estates; they just say Exxon instead of Lord Hifalutin.

It clearly is necessary. We seem to have gotten away from the amendment process for whatever reason. Look at the income tax. No authority for it found in the Constitution, so an amendment was passed. Or a better example, the 18th Amendment. It was pretty clear to those involved that they didn't have the Constitutional authority to ban alcohol, so they amended the Constitution to give them that authority, with the Volstead Act as the result.
Nowadays, I'm not so sure the Congress would have the guts to do that, and would probably just run to the Supreme Court arguing that the authority is "in there somewhere" and hope for their desired outcome.

 

[amherstblackbear]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Amount of money spent in this campaign = $1,530,000,000. That includes both by candidates themselves and by evil scary outside groups.
National debt right now = $ 13,649,000,000,000
So, as a percent, that's .0112096124%. Nice theory though.

Also, there are a few who do have the balls to cut the big stuff, like Paul Ryan (whatever you think of his positions, he at least has a plan). But Paul Krugman refers to Ryan as a "flim-flam man".
Or House Dems like Earl Pomeroy totally fudge his numbers to scare the electorate.

With mindless opposition like that, would you put a plan out there?

The numerator isn't going anywhere soon, I'm afraid. The best plan to "reduce" the debt is to grow the denominator: GDP.

Of course, none of the pols have the answer to that one, either.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

I think I'm with you here. Everybody who meets the qualification for the office is a potential write-in candidate. The deeper question is whether there's a status to get on the ballot or such a list even if you're not a party nominee, and I assume that's covered by having a sufficient number of signatures to be registered as a qualifying candidate by the deadline (in plenty of time to print the ballots, upload the data to the machines, etc).

I don't like on-the-fly changes to procedural rules in general. If the process needs amending, put it through the approved change management cycle and apply the approved change in the next election. But I do CM for a living, so of course I would say that.

Also, they're evidently going to need a very long list.

http://community.adn.com/adn/node/154002

56 candidates at least.

 

[MountieBoyOz]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Dear Politicians,

Stop calling your mommies to help you in your campaign. Have them pose with you while you talk, but please don't turn them into your spokespeople. (This applies to ALL parties.) Thank you.

Signed,

Daniel Robert Mount (me)

 

[Kepler]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

It clearly is necessary. We seem to have gotten away from the amendment process for whatever reason. Look at the income tax. No authority for it found in the Constitution, so an amendment was passed. Or a better example, the 18th Amendment. It was pretty clear to those involved that they didn't have the Constitutional authority to ban alcohol, so they amended the Constitution to give them that authority, with the Volstead Act as the result.
Nowadays, I'm not so sure the Congress would have the guts to do that, and would probably just run to the Supreme Court arguing that the authority is "in there somewhere" and hope for their desired outcome.

I'm not saying it's clearly not needed, but it most certainly is NOT "clearly" necessary. There is flexibility designed in the system to allow adjustment to change. Amendments are about seismic shifts, not day-to-day slides. That's why there have only been 27 of them. There was just one in a 70 year period between 1795 and 1865 during those halycon days the Scalias gaze back at with such nostalgia. The country changed tremendously during that time, and the Courts and the nation continually adjusted interpretation according to a changing consensus, as we have done, in fact, over our whole history.

We have not gotten away from the amendment process. There have been 8 in the 77 years since that Dark Day For Conservatives when FDR took office. The previous 8 required 128 years.

 

[ScoobyDoo]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

The tea partiers that were on Lawrence O'donnel's show last night couldn't come up with any cuts to balance the budget. Neither could Carly Fiorina when she was being questioned by Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday.

Just saying.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

The tea partiers that were on Lawrence O'donnel's show last night couldn't come up with any cuts to balance the budget. Neither could Carly Fiorina when she was being questioned by Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday.

Just saying.

Carly Fiorina is a California Republican. Are you surprised?

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Now I'm watching the O'Donnel interview you mentioned. Within a minute of queuing up the interview, the guy has called for cutting Medicare in half.

But nope Scooby, no one's willing to talk about it.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

What does that have to do with anything? Everyone is an individual. The facts are that no one is running on balancing the budget. It's all a rail against the one time spending of the stimulus and the bailouts (same thing the Republicans would have done) and the health care bill (which the Republicans didn't have the nads to take care of when they were in power).

And the health care bill is a Republican bill anyway.

Rome is coming down.

Right, but if your point is "Tea Partiers won't cut anything", you can't hold up Carly Fiorina as proof of that insane thesis, because she's nowhere close to a Tea Partier.