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.

(Politico)   Head of Citizens United fretting that grassroots candidates won't have the resources to break through against the establishment   (politico.com) divider line 30
    More: Ironic, Citizens United, RNC, grassroots, establishments, resources  
•       •       •

1768 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Mar 2013 at 2:11 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



30 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-03-19 02:14:27 PM  
Citizens United, the creator of same, the backers, the supporters, and every judge that ruled in favor of it can DIAF, the sooner the better.
 
2013-03-19 02:19:47 PM  
Is this the first shot in the internecine war we've all been expecting?

// probably not
// if there is one, it'll be fired at the start of the campaigns
// or maybe this conflict is destined to be waged in the halls of the RNC until a charismatic leader can unite them (a la Bill Clinton)
// looks like 2016 is even more wide-open than 2012, eh?
 
2013-03-19 02:20:15 PM  
Link to page three of three, dammit. But anyway....

FTA: But they left no doubt that they wanted a primary that does less damage to their eventual nominee and wraps up more quickly to give their candidate more time to face the opposition. [...] To many Republicans, however, the effort smacks of moving the primary away from the grassroots in the name of a less messy and more expeditious campaign.

The upside of an extended primary fight is it allows to to actually thrash out the political positions, and potentially achieve actual consensus, a stronger party, and a stronger candidate on the other side, as the Democrats did in 2008. The downside is that you may fail to achieve consensus, as the GOP seems to have done in 2008 and 2012.

However, I think the heated primary campaigns aren't the problem per se, but a symptom of the underlying sickness of the party's fundamental division. If the party isn't strong enough to face and resolve its own divisions, those divisions will remain to weaken it on the national stage.
 
2013-03-19 02:33:34 PM  
Link to page 3?
 
2013-03-19 02:40:57 PM  
whatculture.com

You made this bed.  Don't complain to us that now we all have to lie in it.
 
2013-03-19 02:44:28 PM  

abb3w: However, I think the heated primary campaigns aren't the problem per se, but a symptom of the underlying sickness of the party's fundamental division. If the party isn't strong enough to face and resolve its own divisions, those divisions will remain to weaken it on the national stage.


And if Grover Norquist, Karl Rove, and the Koch brothers would rather finance a Republican civil war instead of buying private islands, who are we to stop them? It's not like they're going to spend money to help other human beings anyway. We might as well let them hurt their own party.
 
2013-03-19 02:46:01 PM  
lh5.googleusercontent.com
 
2013-03-19 02:49:35 PM  

clkeagle: abb3w: However, I think the heated primary campaigns aren't the problem per se, but a symptom of the underlying sickness of the party's fundamental division. If the party isn't strong enough to face and resolve its own divisions, those divisions will remain to weaken it on the national stage.

And if Grover Norquist, Karl Rove, and the Koch brothers would rather finance a Republican civil war instead of buying private islands, who are we to stop them? It's not like they're going to spend money to help other human beings anyway. We might as well let them hurt their own party.


I am also encouraged by their campaign to stamp out VOTE FRAUD11TY and hope they continue to spend a lot of time, energy, and resources to stamp it out.
 
2013-03-19 02:53:56 PM  
I see why Subby linked to page 3, FTFA:"Davie Bossie, head of the conservative group Citizens United, fretted that the proposals would mean conservative grassroots candidates, already outmatched organizationally and financially against the GOP establishment on the presidential level, "even less opportunity to break through."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/rnc-autopsy-may-rile-up-base-890 10_Page3.html#ixzz2O0t47cL8"


Excellent.
 
2013-03-19 02:57:36 PM  
"It's hard to ask a TV commercial or a web ad a question and be able to watch the candidate answer directly without squirming - retail politics matter," said Carney, a New Hampshire-based operative. "Less debates [and a] compacted time frame equals less vetting by rank and file voters and increases the importance of funders and special interests.

It might help your serious candidates not have to deal with responding to a pizza promotion/tax plan being shilled by some guy that really had nothing better to do with his time.

Though the base loved that shiat, so what do I know?
 
m00
2013-03-19 03:19:42 PM  
So, the problem with the 2012 election where the unlikeable, vulture capitalist, tax-dodging, out-of-touch white Republican candidate who was picked by the establishment lost because he was exposed through the primary process as unlikeable, vulture capitalist, tax-dodging and out-of-touch.

So the solution is to speed up the primary process so future establishment-picked candidates aren't exposed for the horrible people that they are?

Got it, GOP.
 
2013-03-19 03:20:46 PM  
Please please please do not do anything that in any way, shape or form shortens the most fascinating and hilarious TV show broadcast every four years: GOP primary debate season.
 
2013-03-19 03:22:01 PM  

abb3w: However, I think the heated primary campaigns aren't the problem per se, but a symptom of the underlying sickness of the party's fundamental division.


Bingo.  The GOP has some deep, fundamental problems, and in spite of Republicans' best efforts, they can't just be covered up with a bandage.  They need to do some serious re-shuffling and re-thinking, and so far they haven't had the courage to even suggest it needs to be done.
 
2013-03-19 03:37:28 PM  
Ladies and gentlemen, I do believe we've just experienced the most accurate use of the Ironic tag in the history of Fark.
 
2013-03-19 03:48:48 PM  
Dear Democratic and Republican Parties, start paying for your farking primaries. Your party nomination process should not be publicly funded. Thank you.
 
2013-03-19 04:18:47 PM  

HMS_Blinkin: abb3w: However, I think the heated primary campaigns aren't the problem per se, but a symptom of the underlying sickness of the party's fundamental division.

Bingo.  The GOP has some deep, fundamental problems, and in spite of Republicans' best efforts, they can't just be covered up with a bandage.  They need to do some serious re-shuffling and re-thinking, and so far they haven't had the courage to even suggest it needs to be done.


Yup.  The conventional, CNN lazy thinking wisdom is that the GOP made a purely tactical error in letting their primary go on for so long and having so many debates in which the candidates "beat each other up."

Please.  Not a single bit of damage done to the GOP during that primary was caused by candidates being excessively mean to one another.  ALL of it happened because too often the candidates said exactly what they were thinking or what they knew their constituents wanted to hear.  A few times even the audience contributed to the massive self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head that was the GOP primary.
 
2013-03-19 04:25:25 PM  
So like, can we get back to the pre-Citizens United utopia where intelligent, informed voters elected representitives who did what was best for the country and money had no place in politics?  Or are we stuck in this hellscape where parties are not forced to create transparent shell PACs to collect donations and political speech is not subject to arbitrary restrictions?
 
2013-03-19 04:30:54 PM  
FTA  "I think the wait staff of diners are more informative then the catering staff at the Yale Club."

But then again, the catering staff at the Yale Club can be very informative to the voters if they have their camera running when you start trash talking the 47%.
 
MFK
2013-03-19 04:37:21 PM  
Citizens United can fark right off and die in an aids fire
 
2013-03-19 04:45:00 PM  
Cutting the debates in half, shorter primary, elimination of caucuses, no conventions .... any other ideas for how we can hide what we stand for and how scary our party supporters are?
 
2013-03-19 05:08:38 PM  
Irony just got its golden parchute and retired to a yacht on the Mediterranean.
 
2013-03-19 06:42:18 PM  
OMG.
 
2013-03-19 06:46:16 PM  
In other news, local horse owner frantically tries locking the empty barn door.
 
2013-03-19 08:00:30 PM  
And the last horse finally crosses the finish line. Well done
 
2013-03-19 09:21:03 PM  

BMFPitt: So like, can we get back to the pre-Citizens United utopia where intelligent, informed voters elected representitives who did what was best for the country and money had no place in politics?  Or are we stuck in this hellscape where parties are not forced to create transparent shell PACs to collect donations and political speech is not subject to arbitrary restrictions?


CU wasn't the problem in this. They created a documentary about Hillary Clinton, and got a slot on TV for it to air. Then Clinton decides to run for president, and the law saying 'no non-FEC allowed adverts or private shows within X days of an election or primary' took their slot away. Yeah, they sued over that.

And SCOTUS said that Congress had to either extend it to 'No non-FEC allowed stuff about candidates ever' or they had to allow this crap.

So, guess which one the "party of 'no'" backed? That this is coming back to bite CU and the republicans in the ass is hilarious, given what they tried in the last election cycle. Maybe they'll get their congress-critters to push for a law allowing some oversight of election spending. But I doubt it.
 
2013-03-19 09:26:03 PM  

ykarie: BMFPitt: So like, can we get back to the pre-Citizens United utopia where intelligent, informed voters elected representitives who did what was best for the country and money had no place in politics?  Or are we stuck in this hellscape where parties are not forced to create transparent shell PACs to collect donations and political speech is not subject to arbitrary restrictions?

CU wasn't the problem in this. They created a documentary about Hillary Clinton, and got a slot on TV for it to air. Then Clinton decides to run for president, and the law saying 'no non-FEC allowed adverts or private shows within X days of an election or primary' took their slot away. Yeah, they sued over that.

And SCOTUS said that Congress had to either extend it to 'No non-FEC allowed stuff about candidates ever' or they had to allow this crap.

So, guess which one the "party of 'no'" backed? That this is coming back to bite CU and the republicans in the ass is hilarious, given what they tried in the last election cycle. Maybe they'll get their congress-critters to push for a law allowing some oversight of election spending. But I doubt it.


Use their full name, "Citizens United, Not Timid". It gives more insight into who you are dealing with.
 
2013-03-19 09:46:03 PM  
thewholedangthing.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-03-19 10:38:14 PM  

ykarie: CU wasn't the problem in this.


Define "problem."

And SCOTUS said that Congress had to either extend it to 'No non-FEC allowed stuff about candidates ever' or they had to allow this crap.

My problem with the ruling is that they even gave Congress that option.

So, guess which one the "party of 'no'" backed?

You're giving them far too much credit.

Maybe they'll get their congress-critters to push for a law allowing some oversight of election spending. But I doubt it.

Not likely.  Voter suppression is way more effective and popular.
 
2013-03-19 11:16:26 PM  

jigger: Dear Democratic and Republican Parties, start paying for your farking primaries. Your party nomination process should not be publicly funded. Thank you.


I disagree:

I think that their primaries should not only be funded by the public, but voted in by the public, and on the public's schedule as well ...

Let's start with limiting when the 'organizing' can start. How about Jan 1 of the year in which the election is to be held? That'd be great. I'm feeling generous today : Let's require that everyone be on the ballot by the 15th of January, and then start requiring that states hold their primaries on the 2nd of February.

Then we can hold an election for 1 state every other day until all 50 states have voted, That's 100 days of voting, 15 weeks - longer than most TV Series. Yes. There will be a lot of voting on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays. Fark 'em.  I want this over by the time schools let out.

And Screw this New Hampshire starting first. We'll hold a lottery between Christmas and New Years'  to determine the ordering of the primaries - Perhaps we'll have two bags from which we draw tiles : 3 small states, and then we'll have one BIG state. Yeah. That means that candidates might get to campaign in California and Texas while the climate is still favorable, and Iowa and New Hampshire might have to farking stand in line.
 
2013-03-20 11:53:56 AM  

m00: So, the problem with the 2012 election where the unlikeable, vulture capitalist, tax-dodging, out-of-touch white Republican candidate who was picked by the establishment lost because he was exposed through the primary process as unlikeable, vulture capitalist, tax-dodging and out-of-touch.

So the solution is to speed up the primary process so future establishment-picked candidates aren't exposed for the horrible people that they are?

Got it,  Please Proceed, GOP.

 
Displayed 30 of 30 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report