Dont count them, explain them.

If you allow all the money anyone wants to donate bribes are meaningless.

Posted by swamphawk22 on 9/18/2010 4:11:00 PM (view original):
How does money corrupt the process? If you change what you believe in to get moeny you have done something wrong. If you find a guy that thinks like you and you donate to him and he votes like you think he does has the system been corrupted?

Money is a tool.

C'mon you can't be this stupid.  One person, one vote.  That's the democratic process.
If we the people elect a person to represent us but a lobbyist donates money to his campaign fund, who is this official going to serve?  Yep, the guy giving out the green.

Yup, he'll state loud and proud that logic is something Americans don't want.  He'll have phony facts to prove it too.

If you want to make a law that states that Congressmen cannot take jobs in the private sector for 5 years after leaving congress, unless they go back to the same job they had, we might have something.

Congress is examined with a fine tooth comb as to what they do with contributions. Why would a guy sell out to get extra campaign ads.

If everyone can donate there is more money and the power of a donater goes down.

Rich people will always have more power than poor people. Sorry but thats one of the realities of freedom. How can you tell someone not to spend his own money to tell people something? Clearly a 1st Amenment violation. So how will we do this?

Seems logical to me.

Rich people will always have more power than poor people. Sorry but thats one of the realities of freedom. How can you tell someone not to spend his own money to tell people something? Clearly a 1st Amenment violation. So how will we do this?


WRONG.  Go read the Constitution again.

Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech

Spending money is not speech.

Swamp, you always talk about the Constitution, judicial activism, the way the Founders intended it, etc...it was NEVER the founders intention to have money spent on campaigns deciding elections. Hell, they were against CAMPAIGNING because it was unpatriotic.  They would be horrified that money perverted one man/one vote.  To call campaign spending free speech is as much judicial activism as you've ever seen from liberal justices.

I understand your point. I really do. It bothers me a little and I wish there was a way that elections could be less drama.

In the end how can you call a person spending his own money to spread a political message not speech? Really how can you draw this line? Where do you draw this line? How can the government tell people what to talk about? 

No one has to listen to a political ad. No one has to change their vote. Between TV and the internet there is a lot of information out there.

I want someone to really tell me that Thomas Jefferson would be in favor of a law that lets the government tell you what you can tell people about.

Fox News Watch--Fox’s ironically named show that pretends to look out for “media bias” in other places besides Rupert Murdoch’s propaganda channel--does a bit of navel-gazing on the recent victory by “Tea Party” candidate Christine O’Donnell. Host Jon Scott isn’t too happy with the headlines by “liberal” outlets like USA Today, which framed her victory as a “civil war within the GOP” and asks NY Daily News columnist Andrea Tantaros for her take on it.

Tantaros tries to paint what’s happening with the GOP as not a cage-fight between their moderates and conservatives but a fight between “old guard and new guard”. That's how that great conservative sage Michelle Malkin characterized it. I assume she’s talking about that astroturf-funded movement busing retirees out to these rallies against those forty-something “Young Guns” whose great ideas include privatizing Social Security.

Andrea, I hate to break this to you, honey, but there is no "new guard" within the GOP. Their ideas haven't changed for over several decades. They've always been in favor of doing everything to benefit the very wealthy, by sowing fear, bigotry and stupidity among the less fortunate. But after so many years, they're not even trying to keep the mask on what they stand for. The "Tea Party" are just willing to say it out loud what they actually believe in.

Tantaros then points to a column by Peggy Noonan where in typical Villager fashion, she gets things wrong and says that “The populist movement is more a critique of the GOP than a wing of it.”

No, Peggy and Andrea, they’re not a critique of the Republican Party. They *are* the Republican Party. And they--the tea party, the establishment Republicans and the Villagers--are doing everything they can to pretend that Republicans did not govern in the manner that they did for the past thirty years. And they’re also doing everything humanly possible to get the Bush stink off of the Republican brand.

They’re only for small government once a Democrat is in charge. They don’t care about wasteful spending as long as it benefits either the military industrial complex or their cronies. They hate all social programs that help anyone who isn’t rich. They hate taxes on their rich friends. They don’t care how many of our jobs get shipped overseas. And they want to dismantle every social program that makes sure a great deal of our population isn’t starving and on the streets.

There is no space between what these teabaggers believe and what the Republican Party believes. It’s survival of the fittest: if you can’t keep up in that environment, you’re a loser. Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps. And if something happens where you can’t do that, get out of my sight and die. You’re not my problem. I’ve got mine and F-you.

The New York Times' Judith Miller stands up for Karl Rove and points out that KKKarl might have actually spoken the truth for once and this wingnut from Delaware might not actually be electable.

Host Jon Scott asks Jim Pinkerton if the media is just ganging up on Christine O’Donnell. He of course agrees that they are and quotes Roger Simon’s piece in Politico where he claims she could pull this thing out. He also quoted something he read on Free Republic, so that tells you a lot about where his political views are coming from. I don’t disagree with him that she could win the election but I don’t think it will happen without a lot of help from the likes of Fox “News”.

Amid all the arguing over whether the tea partiers are taking over the party and who’s right and who’s wrong, they miss any acknowledgment of how this supposed “grass roots” movement is anything but grass roots, and that this “movement” is nothing but an attempt at re-branding the Republican Party




from Crooks and Liers web site

The Tea Party supporters are helping new candidates beat the old guard Republicans. They are winning many races even though they have much less financial support. So there goes the "its all about the money" theory.

We need more bankrupt people like O'Donnell. The wealthy Ivy league grads have shown over and over that they are just in it for power and more corruption. Give me the bankrupt, the common, the people off the street any day. They are more like me. They are the new patriots that can save this country.

The media has been hitting the Tea Party with everything they got. People obviously dont take the media serious at all. Bout time.

Posted by mykids_31206 on 9/19/2010 10:54:00 PM (view original):
The Tea Party supporters are helping new candidates beat the old guard Republicans. They are winning many races even though they have much less financial support. So there goes the "its all about the money" theory.

We need more bankrupt people like O'Donnell. The wealthy Ivy league grads have shown over and over that they are just in it for power and more corruption. Give me the bankrupt, the common, the people off the street any day. They are more like me. They are the new patriots that can save this country.

The media has been hitting the Tea Party with everything they got. People obviously dont take the media serious at all. Bout time.

O'Donnell is not common people, m-k. She's certainly not rank and file GOP, but her views are pretty far out there.

And Sharron Angle spoke at a John Birch Society-sponsored event in Utah over the weekend. The John Birch Society!

Things like this are the reason why the Tea Party has developed a reputation for being a group of cranks and crazies. Blaming the media for that reputation is just an act of denial.