News-Record.com

I definitely agree that we need "higher quality" candidates.

We hit bottom of the barrel with Vernon Robinson & Robin Hayes. Robinson, played "lackey" to the bigoted white male Republicans and Hayes was nicknamed "The Lysol Man" by another Republican, Richard Vinroot. Vinroot called him that after Hayes claimed women could "spray themselves" with Lysol if they had been raped.

http://www.nndb.com/people/070/000038953/

Then of course we have seats be uncontested because good people do not WANT to run!

~

I call for an end to the euphemisms "public campaign financing" and "public funds." Call them what they are: Taxpayer financing and taxpayer funds.

It seems to me that using a taxpayer's funds, extracted AGAINST the will of said payer upon pain of fine or incarceration or both, for the purpose of supporting a candidate to which the payer is opposed smacks of a First Amendment violation ... to wit: YOU must pay for the speech of the candidate you oppose because HE cannot muster enough support for his position on his own.

Furthermore, among the freedoms we have in this country is the freedom to NOT participate in the election process. Unlike Australia, where non-participation is punishable by fine and/or incarceration, we can still abstain simply by NOT voting if we so choose.

Consider: If FORCED to cast a vote for President in the Democratic primary on May 6, your listed options are H. Clinton, M. Gravel & B. Obama!

"Hasten, Jason, bring the basin! Urrrp! Slop! Bring the mop!"

All this whining about low voter turnout is merely someone trying to force you to do something you don't choose to do. The fact is that these liberal "do-gooders" are trying to infringe on your liberties.

~

Jack, public financing is a choice, and not mandatory for contributors or candidates. Just uncheck the little box on your 1040 if you do not wish to participate. And I do not think the writer suggested mandatory voting.

"Just uncheck the little box on your 1040 if you do not wish to participate"

Explain this one to me, verelse.

If I check or do not check that box, it doesn't change my tax liability or refund at all. It's not like I'm donating my money towards paying for public campaign financing.

Does it mean I can decide how I want the government to spend my taxes? (My guess is they'll just shift the money from where they want it anyway so it makes no difference)
Cause I'd really like to NOT support space shuttle missions.

Of course it is an obvious point, but that $3 you "choose" to "give" to federal financing is $3 that doesn't go to other government programs. You're not "giving" anything.

Another obvious point: the letter isn't about federal financing, and local financing would come out of general tax funds. So "choice" here isn't even a good red herring.

Lastly, I suspect we've seen letters--the same letter, in fact--from all 14 or so people who think this is a good idea. We have been adequately bludgeoned with the tiresome rhetoric of "fairness." Our dreams are sufficiently festooned with the phrases "level playing field" and "special interests." You've made your point (such as it is).

Gail, I'll tell you what I told the last person that suggested this same thing. You pay for it...I am tired of more and more taxes!

~

You are correct about one thing, verelse. This writer did not suggest mandatory voting.

But I submit that that is the ultimate objective of the "woe-are-we ... the low voter turnout is a great tragedy" crowd to which Ms. Stroud DOES belong.

Frankly, I like low turnouts. It makes my vote a bigger factor in the outcome.

~

Ernestine: Yes. The amount of money in the public campaign fund is determined by the number of checkmarks in those little boxes. No, it does not change your refund or liability. Yes, you can decide how the Government spends your taxes. Stop voting for people who spend them in ways you do not approve.

Jack, good point. I think that anyone unwilling to vote is someone I certainly would not wish to vote, anyway. I cast my first vote in 1980 and have not missed any election since, though I had to send in absentee ballots for a few years.

Who needs public financing when you've got a wife with cavernous pockets, private jet, and plagiarizes recipes?
Who? Who?
Who else, but MR. CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM HIMSELF!

Americans across the nation need to "clean house".

We need to elect new State Representatives and Senators (also, Governors, city and county officials --- and don't forget School Board Members). We need people in office who will stand up for us and vote the way we do.

We are: "We the people of the United States"!

Think before you vote!

~

Aggggggh! This is gonna HURT! Gonna hurt BAD!!

I agree with you, DD. Aggggggh!

It's my belief that the worst possible circumstance is that the senior Senator from Arizona is elected President.

Say what?!

Yep. Here's why: Senator McCain is just as liberal as the other two senators on the horizon. The problem is that he has "Republican" credentials. If elected, the PERCEPTION of BALANCE between the legislative and the executive branches will lull many people (and most of Congress) into a false sense of security. Complacency will replace vigilance.

On the other hand, if one of the other contenders should win, people will be much more on guard against the ensuing leftist ... dare I say Marxist? ... agendas that will inevitably follow.

~

Jack,
I believe in divided government. After the GOP took congress and the White House, (and some would argue the Supreme Court) they spent more than all the others combined! They grew government faster than ANY opposition party could have dreamed of. They should be punished and run out on a rail.
With that said, I also believe the Democrats should have a chance to "right the ship". If they fail, I say throw the bums out---even if that means replacing them with "New and Improved" Republicans!
I almost want to see McBush elected just so the people can rise up and say ENOUGH! Whomever is elected, is in for some rough waters.
The longer the party, the worse the hangover---and eight years of a moron in the White House and partisan rubber stamps in congress have set us back tremendously.
People want CHANGE, but I'm not sure they want it badly enough to say 'No More'!