If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New Republic)   Democrats wake up after a one-night-stand called Campaign Finance Reform.   (thenewrepublic.com) divider line 33
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

2476 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Mar 2002 at 9:56 PM (12 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



33 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2002-03-05 09:58:08 PM
Since when have the woken up!?
 
2002-03-05 09:58:33 PM
Doh! Spelling! I better wake up to...
 
2002-03-05 10:01:28 PM
It was a bad lay too.
 
2002-03-05 10:06:32 PM
"No constituency to speak of actually likes this bill or pressed any Democrats to support it," says one Democratic operative.

Which means...nobody got paid to pass this bill.
 
2002-03-05 10:08:04 PM
correct Copenhagen.
 
2002-03-05 10:12:04 PM
"I voted for WHAT?" - Democrat party.
 
2002-03-05 10:15:22 PM
Bah! Campaign Reform... it's only 'essential' when you're loosing.
 
2002-03-05 10:16:50 PM
Simple solution, Salary cap. Works for sports, right? right?....
 
2002-03-05 10:18:12 PM
Damn Republicans forced this bill through Congress and will force it through the Senate - goody two shoes farkheads. That's all I heard from Republicans was reform, reform, reform; we need to reform campaign finance. This whole thing was only a Republican (and British) conspiracy to suppress Democratic votes and voters.
 
2002-03-05 10:20:28 PM
Red99...you're a farkin' idiot
 
2002-03-05 10:24:37 PM
You must be referring to different Republicans from the ones I'm thinking of.
 
2002-03-05 10:25:11 PM
New Policy?: Money talks ... but not when it comes to politics.

Hahahaha...

Gov: "Yer money ain't good here!"


???
 
2002-03-05 10:28:17 PM
1) democrats meaning the democratic elected politicians. as either new republic or national review (can't remember which) pointed out in its piece on mccain-feingold-shays-meehan this week, the dem pols didn't have a choice: we'd all ridicule them if they turned around on this one. but no, they're not going to like it.
2) democratic party voters all like it. as does most of the republican party electorate.
3) did anybody else notice majority leader armey get up and say that nobody in congress has ever been influenced by campaign donations? what bizarre garbage. reminds me of the fortune: washington, dc: fifty square miles almost completely surrounded by reality.
4) people have made it clear before that sleaze isn't welcome in government, but the responsible parties are shameless by now, so this won't help enough. but it's a start.

jacob
 
2002-03-05 10:31:59 PM
If the politicians hate it and no lobbyists supported it, then it MUST be good for the country.
 
2002-03-05 10:43:36 PM
Out Of Bounds, you could run for Senate!
 
2002-03-05 10:58:16 PM
The democratic party is already in big trouble when it comes to the green party. The green party has sucked up all of the new young democratic activists. The problem is they are just as likely to attack democrats as republicans. Do not look at them as just more liberal democrats. Last year in a radio interview Amy Goodman smashed Clinton in a phone interview pretty much blaming him for killing a million Iraqi's. She is a green activist.

Also the democrats cannot go too far left to get them back because most african americans are conservative when it comes to some issues. Do not look for jessie jackson to support gay groups like the greens will. The labor unions for the past few years have been flirting with republicans now that their members hold company stock in their 401Ks so going anti big company that labor has stock in could make labor bolt like james hoffa has been threating to do if ANWAR does not open up to drilling.

This not to say the end is near. The Greens might just self destruct like many new parties have. The Green parties biggiest victory has been from a non member in Ralf Nader and like the Libertarian Party could die and not pose a threat but I have not seen that yet.
 
2002-03-05 11:03:33 PM
Ladies and gentlemen, farkers and farkettes! I present to you a list of absolutely-real-and-not-at-all-made-up sources, in order of appearance in the article! Enjoy!

An experienced party operative.
A senior campaign strategist.
A party lawyer.
One party staffer.
One Democratic operative.
One party campaign hand.
A Democratic party lawyer.

Thank you, drive safely, and please remember to tip your waitresses!
 
sp
2002-03-05 11:10:25 PM
The only people who like the idea are those who know nothing about it. "Campaign Finance Reform....oh, doesn't that sound so nice....reform...i think I'm gonna shoot my wad."

It's a bad idea, and probably not constitutional.
 
2002-03-05 11:15:37 PM
Psh... "Green" Party. They were like, 1,2...3 shades off on the color wheel.
 
2002-03-05 11:18:08 PM
We have campaign laws now, but they were ignored, broken and not inforceable. So what do they do. Say! We need NEW ones. Note how they say Dems will catch up to GOP by using LOOPHOLES!!!!! This reform means nothing. It became a political thing to be for when running for re-election but means nothing when it comes to helping the system.
 
2002-03-05 11:34:59 PM
When the government decides who can raise how much money and for what, then you have a de-facto one-party system. Just like Mother Russia used to make. Campaign finance reform is really all about keeping the Ins in.

Unless we all wake up impose upon the government that money is speech and without free money, there is no free speech, then we could all be headed toward totalitarianism.

Oh, and BTW, "Greens" = "Reds" = Communists.
 
2002-03-05 11:36:09 PM
I voted for this? Must a had to many martini's
 
2002-03-05 11:37:09 PM
Beauty there TV's_Frank
 
2002-03-05 11:41:17 PM
There is Beauty everywhere, but Truth is hard to find....
 
2002-03-05 11:50:39 PM
Twanger: Will you layoff the secret code phrases on this board! Everybody already knows what "The woodpecker is ensconced in a turban of honey" means, coming from you, and we don't appreciate your subtle political meanings you troll(so is Mauiman).
 
2002-03-06 12:11:12 AM
 
2002-03-06 12:35:51 AM
I guess we aren't into giving any politicians any credit here. Maybe they don't deserve it. But both parties have been known in the past (ok rarely, but occasionally) to pass legislation not because of the benefits it will carry for them, but because they think it is what needs to be done.

But maybe that's not the case here, maybe the Democrats are doing this not because of the money, but to gain votes from people who wanted this passed. So it could be a short term loss in money for a long term gain in voter support. Who really knows why they passed it. It would seem to be beneficial for us, so why look a gift piece of legislation in the mouth.
 
2002-03-06 01:43:06 AM
Bush spent twice as much as Gore. Did he get twice as many votes? Money does not equal support.
 
2002-03-06 02:28:15 AM
Red99, you moron, Republicans haven't been behind this campaign finance reform joke, it's been a Democratic means to de-fund the conservatives. Since the Republican party receives more money from more wealthy people than the Democrats, the Democrats (and for some odd reason John McCain) have been trumpeting their mantra "let's take the money out of politics." Since they can't measure up to the Republican party in that capacity, they're trying to eliminate it altogether. This isn't too hard to figure out.

Red99, why would the Republicans want to eliminate their own souce of income? The only reason they would go along with it is because the Democrats have brainwashed voters into believing that money is bad, and the Republicans need the votes to keep the house, or regain the senate. Really, it's not inherently in their interest to see these types of bills pass.
 
2002-03-06 04:07:27 AM
What a load of crap. More Democrat propaganda. "Oh, poor us. Now the Reps have an advantaaaaaaage. Vote for us out of pity. We have nothing else right now."

Ask Al Gore about taking a piss in a Buddhist Temple and "missing" the illegal part of the fundraising. "Quick! While the Vice-President is out of the room for two minutes, here's lots of cash...." Please.

As adept as they are at murder, scandal coverups and porking their interns behind their wives backs, I'm sure they'll manage just fine working their way around this.


And, real quick, this is about as much time as I want to spend on you, Stewiethegreat Red99, you moron, Republicans haven't been behind this campaign finance reform joke, it's been a Democratic means to de-fund the conservatives.
Um, no. THIS reform was initiated by the Reps, then subsequently watered-down by the Dems. Feel free to look into it.
 
2002-03-06 08:07:34 AM
Trent Lott is a plastic haired biatch.


Most of the people opposed to CFR don't know a goddamn thing about it, they're just parroting the RNC party line.
 
2002-03-06 11:52:08 AM
Well wasn't that informative, Ironbar. On behalf of all of us, thanks.
 
2002-03-06 01:29:25 PM
As far as I can tell, both parties are deathly afraid that this bill will force the marginalization of themselves. I have a feeling that it won't do either -- and won't particularly change the makeup of congrease (err congrass, no wait congress). My only hope is that it will lead to a better mix of parties in power, but not having studied the bill at all (and in general not being a god), I cannot say.
 
Displayed 33 of 33 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report