News-Record.com

The system is clearly broken.

I was once in favor of public financing - but now see that it's not the "only" solution and may not even have a part in the solution. If we-the-people fund all the ads - what's to prevent influence purchasing? The money just goes more directly into political pockets and doesn't need to be wasted on negative TV spots.

Once I thought maybe "corporate" or "donations above $xx" could be put into a common pool, from which it would be split based on some metric, like how well the party did on the last election - ranged to prevent a really popular party didn't get all the money ... I mean imagine if the Rep's or Dem's just gave the store away as a purhcase of votes and became so popular they got 100% to whip out any chance for voices of dissent.

We gotta do something ... and the true is: we really need at least one new party as well a new system.

The system is broken and we need to take money out of politics---ASAP!

How to do it without violating our own constitution will be tricky, but it would be nice to see the electronic and print media try to come up with a way to do it that would help our country AND preserve their right to make money off of ads. Whew! That's a tall order.

We are at national concensus on the broken part, so let's reach some concensus on fixing it....
SOON!

You want another political party JDR? Here you are:

http://www.lp.org/

Check out the North Carolina section.

The problem is that the two major parties make all the rules concerning ballot access. Think they'll ever make is easy for a third - or fourth, or fifth - party to be listed?

I happen to believe that the government has no right at all telling anyone how they can spend their money. I believe that the laws restricting the content of political ads 30 days before an election are patently illegal. If I have the money, and want to buy ads saying I believe Hillary Clinton is a socialist, or that Rudy Giuliani leans too far left to be a GOP candidate, that is my right. If George Soros wants to spend millions of dollars to help elect a socialist, it is his right to do so. If David Geffen wants to change his mind about Hillary Clinton and back Barack Obama, that is his right. I realize that that perpetuates the Golden Rule - "He who has the gold rules" - but that is the way of the world.

I also believe that if a candidate has a message that appeals to people, that inspires people to do better, that offers real solutions to the problems we face, that message will get out. It might start with a young city council candidate talking to civic groups, and build from there. It might be a kid in public housing with an idea to make things better for his neighbors, talking to them about it, and being elected to a position where he can put the ideas into practice.

When Ronald Reagan said that goverment is not the solution, he was right. More regulation is not the answer, and the government regulating political spending is regulating speech. There is enough of that already.

yea, maybe, Reformed1. The rhetoic scares though .. I mean:

I'm certainly in lala land favor of reducing the size of government and cutting taxes.

.. but I do not know what reducing the intrusiveness of government really means. If they keep my upwind neighbor from burning a rubber tire .. I say that's good, and I'm ot sure the Libretarian Party would back me on that. Look up coal burning power plants before you answer that question.

I too old and cynical I guess - there just are not enough "peaceful, honest people" out there.

Yea offering "goods and services to willing consumers without a hassle from government" sounds fine ... for example I'm all for letting the tobacco companies make and sell in american the cig's they can product let the advertise too ... but I'd feel better if some portion of the price of a pack REALLY went to pay for lung cancer .. Why is it not? Because we let the R's & D's piss it away.

What would the Libertarians do? Probably eliminate the Tobacco tax, and let folks who get cancer suffer .. OK they did someting stupid they pay the consequences .. but what about all the second-hand sufferers? I sense they'd be left high and dry.

So polute with no repercussions .. that's why I say it's all rhetoric - and scares me a bit.

"Jim Black's downfall reveals"...

a crook, nothing more or less.

One more thing -

I generally agree "the government has no right at all telling anyone how they can spend their money" - and generally agree "the laws restricting the content of political ads 30 days before an election are patently illegal."

BUT ... if you have the money .. first WHY do you have the money? There is a VERY slim chance you actually earned it. Perhaps you are a hustler ... like Hillary Clinton. Perhaps all your buddies are extremely well connected so you always get to the pie long before the rest of us know it exists ... like George Soros. Perhaps your grand-daddy was a whiskey runner and simply inherited it, so you think you're Titled ... like Ted Kennedy.

How about this one: What if your grandaddy, we'll call him Prescott - was a success in part because he had money-making motives that involved the Federal foreign policies - so you have a family history ... ya learned the ropes sitting on grand-pa's knees. What if you have the money because your daddy hangs out with George Soros .. and also happens to be in bed with a bunch of monarchs that happen to sit on top of the world's #1 oil supply. What if your buddies come to you with a Save America Scheme that involves regime change, and that - coincidence certainly - happens to sit on top of the world's #2 oil supply.

Hey - you've got friends that wanted to spend millions of dollars to help elect you to the Top Office - it was their right to do so .. and now you need to Save America ... ONWARD AND UPWARD.

No .. to many assholes that need to be kept in check. "He who has the gold rules" may be the way of the world .. but I'm not going to help perpetuate that.

== PS

Ronald Reagan did say goverment is not the solution, and he was generally right - but have you seen the goverment growth rate undde his adminstration?

sorry for all the typos.

James,
Surely you jest! Growth of government under the Bush administration?

neocon,
Just to confirm your tilt (as if any confirmation is needed) what do you think of Bob Ney? Tom DeLay? Would you also say ....

"a crook, nothing more or less"

about them?

(folks, don't hold your breath for a cogent reply)

WT,
A crook is a crook. Why is it every time a liberal democrat is caught with his hand in the cookie jar you and your ilk start squawking about how "the system is broke" and start crying about "getting money out of politics", but when a republican is caught with his hand in the jar, you are all primed up for a public lashing and jail time?
'Money' and the 'system' are not the problems, corrupt politicians who lack morals are the problem.

Why not say that any politician who accepts X number of $ from a corporation or individual is forbidden to vote on any legislation that may affect on that corp or individual for the duration of his term? THAT will get the (kind of) money out of politics you are crying about.

Don't look for this to happen, though. George Soros might see his halliburton stock take a nosedive.

BTW, how 'bout that Soros dude and his $62m investment in halliburton? Now there is a man with morals...LIBERAL morals...do as I say, not as I do.

So neocon, are Tom DeLay and Bob Ney "crooks, no more no less"?

All day and half the night, and that's all you can muster, world traveler?

Your reading comprehension doesn't reflect well on your moniker.

Real s-l-o-w-l-y now:
Yes, DeLay and Ney are crooks, no more, no less.

Now answer my question: Why is it when a liberal democrat is caught with his hand in the cookie jar, you and your cohorts here start whining about how 'broke the system is' in an attempt to justify his misdeeds, but when a republican is caught with his hand in the jar, you and your ilk are calling for blood?
I'm just curious as you paint yourself to be so square with the facts and bleat about everyone else being a "partisan hack" when they criticize a liberal democrat. So please...splain this to me o wise traveler of the world.
I won't hold my breath waiting on a cogent answer.

BTW, how about that darlin' of the left, George Soros and his $62m investment in halliburton? Ain't he a peach?

Thank goodness you have FINALLY admitted someone with an "R" after their name is a crook! Baby steps, but you are heading toward healing.

The system that allowed and encouraged Delay and Ney is broken. The scandals in D.C. and Raleigh are not separate instances rather two different parties drunk with same corrupting sources-- power and money.

Like I said, I'm not holding my breath.
For the 3rd time... Why is it than when a liberal democrat is caught with their hand in the cookie jar, you and your cohorts here begin to bleat about "the system being broke" and when it is a republican, you are ready for a public flogging and jail time?

Oh, and how bout that democratic cash cow, George Soros and his $62m investment in halliburton? I wonder how much of that $ will end up in the coffers of liberal democrats as they try to sieze control the wh? Kinda ironic, don't you think? A corrupt corporation like halliburton raping and plundering the system so Cheney's buddies can rake in the cash, and now we learn that perhaps, just perhaps, the hero of the left and #1 Bush hater Soros is drinking from the same trough. What a peach of a guy.

checkmate.

Neocon,
When you are backed into a corner, you ALWAYS change the subject. Most here are ignore your substandard intellect.

"Backed into a corner" and "changing the subject", world traveler? You are parroting Denzein from another thread. Why am I not surprised since this is your only strong point? Good for you these blogs are not copyrighted.

You have yet to answer the question. Here it is for the 4th time:
Why is it that when a money grubbing liberal politician is caught with his pants down and his hand in the cookie jar, you and the ones you parrot so often, begin to whine about a "broke system" and "getting money out of politics", but when a republican is caught with his beak in the trough, it's 'bar the door Nellie' and time for a bloodletting?

Oh, and how about that peach of a guy, George Soros and that evil halliburton stock? It never ceases to amaze me the number of idiots that buy into his rhetoric simply because he too, hates Bush. But apparently his hatred and morals only go so far, wouldn't you say? I mean apparently they only reach to the door of the NYSE, no? After that a 'higher power' seems to take control, wouldn't you agree?

BTW, I'm still not holding my breath for that 'cogent' answer.

I'll bet that Soros dude is one happy puppy that halliburton didn't contract to rebuild Iraq for $1 like cRock-o-...feller suggested they should. Whatcha think, world traveler?

No answer huh world traveler? Methinks you are a partisan hack who looks the other way when one of his own rats has been trapped, but toots his pitiful little horn as loud as he can when a republican's corruption is exposed.

Checkmate...again.

Perhaps, neocon, you need a refresher course on the rules of the Beltway Blame Game:

Picture, if you will, two cookie jars. Same size, shape, colour and contents. Now imagine two politicians, each with his right hand in one of the jars. Both are wearing identical Armani suits, solid gold Rolex watches (these, birthday gifts from their pre-kindergarten children) and diamond pinky rings. Each extracts the same number of cookies and pops a couple in his respective mouth, pocketing the remaining goodies.

Alas, both come before the Committee on “Congressional Ethics” (a contradiction in terms, I know ... but work with me on this, OK?) Both are scolded for misdeeds. Both are contrite and vow to never stray again. So far, everything is the same ... well, ALMOST. It seems that the Congressman on the right is wearing a small elephant lapel pin, and the one on the left is wearing small jackass lapel pin. So what, you ask? Everything else is exactly the same ... the facts, the accusations, the reprimands ... what possible difference could the tiny pins make? Read, and learn:

The next morning, CNN's Robin Meade, the New York Times and the Washington Post report that Congressman Redstate (elephant) has been “caught red-handed stealing from 'the people,' gorging himself on the fruits of his thievery, and in possession of illegal booty with the suspected intent to distribute it to large corporate fatcats as payback for campaign contributions. Further, he has been severely censured by the entire House.” This is the Robin's lead story and is reported above the fold, page one of Section A in the Times and the Post.

Section D, page seventeen in the same issue has a small article that Congressman Bluestate (jackass) has been “questioned by his colleagues about his involvement in a plan to re-deploy funds from the cookie jar to help 'the poor, the homeless, the hungry and the little children who are without health insurance,' using only a fraction of the total himself to help cover the expenses of distribution to the hardest-hit areas. Further, he has agreed to replenish the cookie jar in full and to make a sizable personal contribution to the 'Sisters of the Smokescreen Fund for the Aged and the Infirm'.”

This, neocon, is how the game is played. There is absolutely NOTHING in the rules about “cogent responses” being required. Hope you find this refresher helpful in getting your mind right.

Mr. Armstrong,
Thanks. That was easier than gettin' my dirt out of Boss' hole.:]

How bout that fat cat Soros dude? Ain't he a swell guy?