VisorCentral.com Pages (4): [1] 2 3 4 »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page

VisorCentral.com (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php)
- Off Topic (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=6)
-- W00T! W00T! Shays-Meehan! (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/showthread.php?threadid=21462)

Posted by septimus on 02-14-2002 01:49 PM:

W00T! W00T! Shays-Meehan!

An an upset that is ten times more stunning than the banal superbowl, the House passed the Shays-Meehan Campaign Finance Reform bill in the wee hours of the morning after a marathon session.

In a vote or 240-189, about 3 dozen Republicans bravely bucked the party line to vote for the bill that tries to eliminate soft money. Republicans tried several tactics to try and stop the bill.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...ign_finance_118

...knowing how easily the McCain Feingold bill passed the Senate, Republican leaders promised to filibuster when this latest bill comes up. I predict it will be to no avail, campaign finance will pass.

YES!

....of course, there is that nasty little issue of the constitutionality of it all.... I'll admit to being a little split on that one... but I think there is a way to ban soft money constititionally

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

Posted by sowens on 02-14-2002 02:13 PM:

Why would you want to ban soft money? I think it's the perfect statement of the state of modern American society that we can buy political power with enough money.

__________________
It's gotta be weather balloons. It's always weather balloons. Big, fiery, exploding weather balloons.
-- ComaVN (from Slashdot)

Posted by Toby on 02-14-2002 02:45 PM:

Re: W00T! W00T! Shays-Meehan!

quote:
Originally posted by dietrichbohn
[...] ....of course, there is that nasty little issue of the constitutionality of it all....
_That_ little thing. Bah...the Constitution doesn't mean anything anymore. Just say it's 'to prevent terrorism'/'FOR THE CHILDREN!!!1!!1!11!!'/<insert whatever hackneyed phrase of the week> and you can burn it. I'm reminded of an old translation...

What they say: "It's not about the money. It's the principle."
What they mean: "It's about the money."

You can bet your life that if the Dems were getting as much 'soft money' as they claim the Reps are getting, they'd be fighting this tooth and nail. Sour grapes, what a great basis for legislation.

Posted by septimus on 02-14-2002 03:05 PM:

Re: Re: W00T! W00T! Shays-Meehan!

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
You can bet your life that if the Dems were getting as much 'soft money' as they claim the Reps are getting, they'd be fighting this tooth and nail. Sour grapes, what a great basis for legislation.

Actually, the Dems have caught up to the Republicans in terms of soft money. Here's the fastest source I could find, not exactly non-biased, but the numbers are accurate, IIRC.

This isn't a partisan bill. 39 republicans crossed the aisle to vote for it, and 12 Democrats voted against it. Not huge numbers, but there. And in the Senate, the biggest proponent is McCain, a republican (at least ostensibly )

Come on, this is a positive step and an attempt to start cleaning up the filth that has filled Washington, you can't really think it's all that bad?

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

Posted by Potus on 02-14-2002 03:37 PM:

Soft money

The reThuglican claim that they will lose control of the house without soft money just goes to show you that they can't win based on theri IDEAS.

__________________
When I get a little money I buy books; if any is left, I buy food and clothes.

Posted by volcanopele on 02-14-2002 04:04 PM:

Re: Soft money

quote:
Originally posted by Potus
The reThuglican claim that they will lose control of the house without soft money just goes to show you that they can't win based on theri IDEAS.


Yet, somehow we win elections. Thats interesting

__________________
Did you just go near a burning hot river of lava or are you just happy to see me?

Posted by septimus on 02-14-2002 04:22 PM:

Re: Re: Soft money

quote:
Originally posted by Potus
they can't win based on theri IDEAS.


quote:
Originally posted by volcanopele
Yet, somehow we win elections. Thats interesting


Right. It is interesting. I wonder how you do it? Or, more to the point, I wonder how you're going to do it once this bill takes effect.

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

Posted by DingoFish on 02-14-2002 04:46 PM:

Re: Soft money

quote:
Originally posted by Potus
The reThuglican claim that they will lose control of the house without soft money just goes to show you that they can't win based on theri IDEAS.


The basis for this argument is not that Repubs can't win on the merit of their platform. It's that the mainstream media, for the most part, slants more liberal than conservative. Therefore your nightly news shows will probably talk up more liberal ideas (Democrat) tha Repubs. The only way to counter this bias is with running TV ads, etc., which we all know costs $$$$.

Basically, the Democrats get free commercials every night on the news.

Posted by septimus on 02-14-2002 05:10 PM:

Re: Re: Soft money

quote:
Originally posted by DingoFish
Basically, the Democrats get free commercials every night on the news.

yes and no, depends on the news source. Fox is as right as they come, and our local affiliates tend to be conservative (former MN senator Rod Grams, the rightest of the right, was a local news anchor here)

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

Posted by dick-richardson on 02-14-2002 05:19 PM:

Republicans are better than Democrats becuase Jesus loves them more.

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

Posted by septimus on 02-14-2002 06:00 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dick-richardson
Republicans are better than Democrats becuase Jesus loves them more.


Indy Rock Pete is a Republican!

Get yourself a shirt with the new GOP Party Slogan!

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

Posted by Toby on 02-14-2002 06:27 PM:

Re: Re: Re: W00T! W00T! Shays-Meehan!

quote:
Originally posted by dietrichbohn
Actually, the Dems have caught up to the Republicans in terms of soft money. Here's the fastest source I could find, not exactly non-biased, but the numbers are accurate, IIRC.
Those numbers show the Reps consistently ahead, though.
quote:
This isn't a partisan bill.
Yes, and it isn't about the money.
quote:
39 republicans crossed the aisle to vote for it, and 12 Democrats voted against it.
How many of those Reps live in 'liberal' districts like Jim Jeffords? How many of those Dems are 'Blue Dogs' who live in 'conservative' districts? If it walks like a duck...
quote:
Not huge numbers, but there. And in the Senate, the biggest proponent is McCain, a republican (at least ostensibly )
Ostensibly being the key word. Strange that he couldn't win the nomination though even though he's the media darling.
quote:
Come on, this is a positive step and an attempt to start cleaning up the filth that has filled Washington, you can't really think it's all that bad?
The problem that I have with it is that it doesn't address the root cause of the problem. If money is an issue, then ban _all_ contributions and publicly finance the national elections. Give _every_ candidate equal access to the pulpit. Otherwise, you just open up the road to rich wackos like Perot or that guy from Jersey who don't have a problem spending tens of millions of dollars of their own money buying an election.

Posted by septimus on 02-14-2002 06:30 PM:

quote:
Ostensibly being the key word. Strange that he couldn't win the nomination though even though he's the media darling.

Gee, you don't think the huge amount of cash that was devoted to Bush's campaign had anything to do with it, do you?

quote:
ban _all_ contributions and publicly finance the national elections. Give _every_ candidate equal access to the pulpit.

Agreed. But good luck--at least this is a step in the right direction.

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

Posted by Toby on 02-14-2002 06:36 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dietrichbohn
Gee, you don't think the huge amount of cash that was devoted to Bush's campaign had anything to do with it, do you?
Considering all the free national media time that McCain received? Nope. He had plenty of time and opportunity to get his message out.

Posted by septimus on 02-14-2002 07:09 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
Considering all the free national media time that McCain received? Nope. He had plenty of time and opportunity to get his message out.

bah. You just disagree with any thread that starts with a W00T!

*shrug*. it also had a lot to with the fact that when McCain criticized the Religious Right, Bush jumped all over him. and i believe that his media time didn't have the same impact as the soft-money-funded attack ads.

__________________
Don't like somebody? Click "Profile" on a post and then click "Ignore "so and so's" posts". Voila!

Posted by Toby on 02-14-2002 08:05 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dietrichbohn
bah. You just disagree with any thread that starts with a W00T!
*scans thread* Nope, I don't find myself disagreeing anywhere in that thread. Is this the new PDABuzz style of rebuttal, where you attack the person making the statement rather than considering that their statement may be accurate? I don't think your response was abusive enough for Wes's standards, though (not enough platform-zealot and hidden agenda accusations).
quote:
*shrug*. it also had a lot to with the fact that when McCain criticized the Religious Right, Bush jumped all over him.
Then it seems that they're a significant enough portion of the 'base' to make him non-representative of the whole.
quote:
and i believe that his media time didn't have the same impact as the soft-money-funded attack ads.
Hey, some people believe in God. I'm not going to question your beliefs no matter how based in personal biases they may be. ;�~~~

Posted by DingoFish on 02-14-2002 09:12 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by dietrichbohn

and i believe that his media time didn't have the same impact as the soft-money-funded attack ads.


I believe that when people see the commercials they think, "yeah right, like I believe that, look who's paying for it." Even when it's their own candidate.

But when Dan, Peter, or Tom talk about them on the news, then it MUST be true!

Posted by srwdc1 on 02-14-2002 10:31 PM:

quote:
Yet, somehow we win elections. Thats interesting


um, not quite. Unless you count the THEFT of FLORIDA and the SUPREME COURT THEFT as "winning elections"

Posted by dick-richardson on 02-15-2002 01:10 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by srwdc1
um, not quite. Unless you count the THEFT of FLORIDA and the SUPREME COURT THEFT as "winning elections"



Get over it. It's no more corrupt than any other aspect of the gov't. God knows with the drastic changes Gore would've implemented in office, we'd all be much better off.

I am always amused at the people who believe there is a significant difference between republicans and democrats in practice. Basically, elections have become a choice between:
-or-
And the one who gives the impression of liking it least wins.

__________________
-Joshua
Abortion: Darwinism at its finest.

Posted by VTL on 02-15-2002 01:15 AM:

quote:
um, not quite. Unless you count the THEFT of FLORIDA and the SUPREME COURT THEFT as "winning elections"


News flash - election over, Bush president with 80% approval rating. Get over it.

The campaign finance reform bill is a chimera. It will not get the money out of politics. It just shoves it out of one pot (the parties soft-money accounts) into another pot (so-called "independent expenditures.")

The McCainiacs try and deal with this reality by banning third-party adds in the period leading up to the election, which is so blatantly unconsitutional that I coud write the legal brief challenging it in my sleep.

You can't ban money in politics - at least not so long as the federal government regulates so many aspects of our lives and economy. It will inevitably attract money and time from those who want to use that influence to their own ends.

So the final result of campaign finance reform will be to squeeze the money out of the parties - which, under current law at least have to report where it comes from and how they spend it - into shadowy entities on the left and the right that are largely unaccountable.

Ain't reform grand?

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:20 PM. Pages (4): [1] 2 3 4 »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin Version 2.3.4
Copyright © Jelsoft Enterprises Limited 2000 - 2016.