Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
When you contemplate all of the problems that beset us in this election year it is hard not to feel daunted by the task of finding solutions. Many millions of American’s are without jobs, with the prospect of future employment seeming illusory. The top 1% of the American population controls vast amounts of the country’s wealth. http://www.businessinsider.com/15-charts-about-wealth-and-inequality-in-america-2010-4?op=1 Wages of average Americans have stagnated for the past 40 years to such an extent that our middle class is shrinking rapidly. The housing boom of years past has become a bust of monumental proportions and foreclosures are destroying formerly viable neighborhoods. Our once barely adequate “safety net” has been shredded and there are attempts to destroy both Social Security and Medicare as we know it. Despite a weak attempt at Medical reform millions of Americans find health care unaffordable, with many dying and others forced into bankruptcy to stay alive. Due to lack of money America’s once magnificent infrastructure is rotting and solutions are not on the horizon.
The collapse and bailout of our banking industry has cost us trillions and appears to have been brought about by fraudulent practices on the part of the industry, yet no one has been indicted. In fact the remuneration of top executives in this duplicitous industry has actually increased. Efforts to impose stiff controls ensuring that these artificial crises don’t happen again and that these huge financial entities do business ethically, have failed to pass the Congress. We see that the fallout from the American banking crisis has undercut the world’s economy and that economic crises in other industrialized nations appear regularly. Please notice I’m only referring to the economic problems we face and only producing a partial list of those economic problems.
We have seemingly come to the conclusion of an unnecessary war in Iraq, where trillions were spent and perhaps a million were killed, yet the withdrawal of troops is to bases that surround Iraq. We are leaving about 40,000 Americans in country, many as mercenaries (contractors is a euphemism) as we support the largest diplomatic infrastructure in any foreign nation. The war in Afghanistan still rages in a land that has never been significantly shaped by any outside empire, this despite the killing of Osama Bin Laden and the virtual destruction of Al Qaeda. Hundreds of billions are being spent and the lives of our troops are put in danger, in an exercise with little hope of success. Billions are going towards building Afghanistan’s infrastructure as ours is falling apart. Yet these instances fail to raise the broad spectrum of the military/foreign policy problems continuing to plague us. These issues include a military budget that far greater than that of all other nations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures
However, these three paragraphs still do not encompass the broad range of problems we Americans face. There is more to be touched on before we come to the conclusion that I’ve reached, that there is one problem that not only transcends all of these, but its need for immediate solution supersedes any of the others in importance.
On this blog the issue of civil liberties is constantly with us because our host/founder is a distinguished Constitutional Law Professor and Lawyer. Jonathan Turley’s career has been spent fighting for civil liberties and for our freedoms. One result of the tragedy of 9/11 has been the steady erosion of our civil liberties in the name of anti-terrorism. The formation of a “Super Agency”, the frighteningly named (on so many levels) Department of Homeland Security has centralized LEO’s of all levels, both civilian and military intelligence organizations, into an establishment with unprecedented vigilance of American’s daily lives. We have allowed torture, used brainwashing and unlimited preventive detention. This doesn’t fully subsume the efforts made in the losing War on Drugs that has cost hundreds of billions and in fact has proved to be an utter failure. The major drug dealers receive the main benefits via higher profits created by this enforcement. A side effect, but perhaps far more costly has been the phenomenon of our country having the highest incarceration rate in the world. Our incarceration rate is way beyond Russia and China, not to mention other nations whose names are synonymous with oppression. We have literally created a prison industry, with privatization and hiring out of prisoners to work for private industries in virtual chain gangs. This is a return byAmericato indentured servitude and perhaps slavery. As any of our regular readers on this blog know the above merely superficially touches upon the problems we have in ensuring civil liberties and staving off prejudice.
So far I’ve touched on the critical issues we face regarding the economy, the Military/Foreign Policy establishment and on the erosion of our constitutional freedoms. The last area I’d like to briefly explore is that of the encroachment of religion into our political life and the radical new interpretations of Church/State separation it has brought. It is true that in America there has always been a tension between those who wear their religiosity on their metaphoric sleeves and the right of average Americans to live their lives as they see fit. This encompasses the right to believe, or disbelieve as we choose. I grew up in a time when great literary works were banned from our shores, where movies were censored, where an actual husband and wife on a TV show (I Love Lucy) had to be depicted as sleeping in separate beds and when she was obviously pregnant, the word pregnant couldn’t be used. In my native New York State, our Governor’s wife had to established residence in Reno,Nevada in order to divorce him, since divorce was not allowed in New York. This was how far religion already had encroached upon civil life and the lives of ordinary people in times past.
Today we are faced with the specter of religion once again dominating our society. These new religious zealots disdain separation of church and state; re-write history to suit their narrow views; would force a woman to bear children she doesn’t want and enforce their peculiar notions of sin upon all of us. They would resurrect the marginalization of homosexuals via depriving them of their constitutional rights and even go so far as some as suggesting we ban contraception. They raise a legitimate fear of returning us to the “Dark Ages” of only sixty years ago. Sadly, these problems with religious zealots that I’ve enumerated aren’t even a complete catalog of things we should fear by their renewed rise to political power through overwhelming wealth.
What I propose to you here is that all of these difficult situations, to those who view them as problems, have arisen out of one overarching issue. This is the source for all of those dilemmas detailed above and therefore must be dealt with before all of the others. It is America’s transcendent issue. This is the problem of the influence of wealth upon our political system. All of the evils (to my mind) listed above arise from the power to control government that money gives. Think about that in context of every issue I’ve detailed above and you will see that at its root is the influence of entrenched wealth upon our political system. The economy is a no-brainer. The Military/Security/Industrial Complex, of which Dwight Eisenhower warned, has controlled our military budget and our foreign policy. This interlocking self interest group has required diminishing our civil liberties to justify the money spent on wars and intrusion into foreign affairs, by promoting a climate of fear. They also use unconstitutional intrusion to intimidate and/or punish those who expose their misdeeds. Religious institutions free of taxation and oversight have developed huge war chests to control politicians and ensure that they adhere to certain litmus tests of “putative piety”.
From lobbying efforts and emoluments offered politicians, to the vital need for campaign financing that politicians rely on to get elected/re-elected, money drives our system. All of the difficulties we face arise because of the influence of wealth upon our political system. Therefore, in my opinion this should be the transcendent issue that must be addressed if we have any hope of making America conform to the vision of our Founding Fathers. While some may argue that I’m belaboring the obvious, I would put to them that nothing else can be changed until we change our laws on campaign financing, lobbying and corporate personhood. In that mix we should ban religious entities, not from their right to freely practice their beliefs, but from the ability to influence politicians through money that is un-taxed. In America everyone should have the right to have their say, but it is intolerable that the opinions of some “elite” citizens prevail because their money is considered “free speech” as was formulated in the SCOTUS case Buckley v. Valeo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo and then recently expanded in the infamous “Citizens United Case”. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission .
An example of “Citizens United” impact was seen this week in Iowa where there were massive infusions of so-called “Super-Pac” money for campaign ads, which changed the dynamic of the Iowa Caucus. The Jack Abramoff lobbying case brought out the sickening details of how politicians were bought and corrupted. Abramoff ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abramoff ) was recently released from a minor jail term, but most of those he was involved with, like the ubiquitous Grover Norquist and Karl Rove were never indicted. That Abramoff is trying to atone for his behavior by speaking out against money in politics, is but a cruel irony of how powerless the system is to deal with its corruption by money.
My conclusion is that with so many problems to deal with in our country our efforts to bring significant reform must “follow the money”. If we can’t limit the destructive effect of wealth upon our political system, our efforts at dealing with the many other issues destroying our Constitutional government will fail. I believe we must start here. What do you think? Below are links to organizations that have been formed to fight the influence of wealth and to overturn Citizens United. If you agree with me you might check some of them out to see if they are worthy of your support.
http://democracyisforpeople.org/
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/10/28/free_speech_for_people_coalition_urges
http://www.movementforthepeople.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/CfAW_ActionToolkit.pdf
http://sanders.senate.gov/petition/?uid=f1c2660f-54b9-4193-86a4-ec2c39342c6c
Submitted by: Mike Spindell, guest blogger
I stepped into the comment section with one eye closed – I expected the wingnut brigade explaining how this was all Obama’s fault. Surprised to see only puzzling who blames the entire idea of government as the problem. Because things are great in places with no government I guess.
The problem, dear puzz, is that things were much better – and getting even better – from 1932 till 1980. Incomes rising, education levels rising, mortality rates dropping, poverty rates dropping, much better in so many ways. Then around 1980 the government fell into the hands of those who believed IT was the problem & it should be dismantled. They have done that pretty well over the last 30 years and have managed to reverse those trends.
We have a government of the people, by the people; if it is a problem its is the people that are the problem. What we don’t have at the moment is a government for the people because the whole process is dominated by huge amounts of money . That money has bought a lot of votes through clever ads and manipulated ‘news’ coverage. It has given a small cadre of very wealthy to gain influence well beyond their worth. They have turned the machinery of government against the nation for their own betterment. But that is not the governments fault, it is the fault of people willing to vote against their best interests.
“We are an addicted society and our national thinking must be fixed. Our national thinking is that of an addict in many areas, the thinking of a warmongering empire in other areas.”
Dredd,
Don’t get me started with those issues, though I quite agree. I think though that we discount the roots of the addiction and the imperialism at our peril. In the end these facets are but the end product of a propaganda of fear and consumerism, foisted upon us in the self interest of the few. That their brainwashing has had a malevolent effect is quite obvious today.
1zb1,
A problem commenting and writing here is that I do so much, that at some point, for brevity, I have to assume people are somewhat familiar with my point of view. This is of course not possible because this blog contains so many viewpoints that it would take a photographic mind to keep all the commenters views straight, but I’m never quite able to touch all my own thought bases in my writing and commenting here. That is a long entree into answering your question, that was also posed on another thread. It is by the way quite a valid question, especially in defense of this President and the criticism heaped upon him regarding the erosion of civil liberties. I had answered it before, but perhaps in the rush of comments you missed it.
I believe the Constitution was a wonderful document and one of the great contributions to humanity, in history, when it was adopted. However, it has some glaring flaws, that have grow worse with time. Giving each State the same number of senators is one instance, where over time serious anomalies have developed that lead to States with tiny, rural populations being able to exert power far beyond their numbers. We see the side effect of this today as the Iowa Caucus and the New Hampshire primary have major effects on Presidential politics.
I personally don’t believe that the Constitution has been completely honored, or followed, since its institution. There is no “Golden Age” of Constitutional rule that we can look back on and say that we have eroded from that time. The over riding theme of American society and its struggle towards rule of the people, has been a battle between most of our populace and those who have the means to consider themselves elite, thus more fit to rule over the rest of us. As this blog suggests it is the prerogatives given to those who control vast amounts of wealth, that have led to almost all the ills befalling our country.
Everything has its context though and from your comments on other threads, I’m aware that you pose the question in the context of what has occurred under this President and the harsh criticism he has received. You deserve my answer to this, but I’m am answering you at the peril of derailing my own blog into a debate on the 2012 election. I hope it doesn’t become that since other threads are involved with that question and I think the issue I raise here deserves a full discussion.
President Obama has not been the President I expected him to be and thus I feel disappointed in him. The Bush/Cheney era codified certain powers in the Presidency that I consider to be anti-constitutional. It is not that the things that malign administration did represented new history, because for instance the assassination of purportedly dangerous foreigners has occurred throughout our history. One can point to our incursions into Latin American politics, the assassinations of Lumumba, Diem etc. as evidence this has been long term American Presidential policy. These practices, bad as they were, were always done sub rosa because it was recognized that they were extra legal. Bush/Cheney not only brought that into the open, but conspicuously bragged about their acts. Many of us expected Obama to rein that in and he hasn’t, hence we are dealing with a failure of expectations as well as extra-Constitutional activities.
My particular viewpoint has been clear and consistent here in that I’ve castigated the President continuously for his failure to live up to my standards and expectations. Nevertheless, I have also been quite clear that there is a distinction to be made between Obama’s failures and the opposition to his re-election. Considering the alternatives to him, he will have my vote and support. While I firmly believe that this country has actually been an oligarchy since the adoption of the Constitution, I feel it is an oligarchy that is rife with internal divisions. The chief among them is the split between those who believe the citizens are sheep to be shorn by
a deserving elite and those who feel that fairness to the people makes for a better system. Perhaps as illustration the divide between the Koch Bros.on one hand and Warren Buffett on the other. Both sides have too much power for my taste, but I’ll support the Buffett side, until we can find a means to rid ourselves of rule by oligarchy and return to the spirit of the Constitution, which has never been fully implemented.
Mike, your anger at Obama (and the anger of others) seems to be because you completely misunderstood who he was. i believe anyone who actually read his website or listened to him would see he was a ‘centrist” and a compromiser. the mistake is yours for not paying attention (and perhaps being a bit disconnected from the reality of politics and history), so perhaps your anger would be more appropriately directed at yourself. (I think you referred to your “analytical gifts”. Clearly they weren’t working in this case.
For someone like me who supported Hillary but happily voted for Obama (and will do so again), perhaps I had a more realistic view of who he was. Lets face it, he wasn’t the first person to promis change in an election. In my view – and given the reality (which others like to ignore) – he has actually exceeded my expectations.
Does this mean I am blind to the shortcoming and disappointments (as suggested by the screaming rants for Ron Paul), of course not. But I know of no President who has had to face greater challanges (short of Lincoln and FDR) in a more fractured nation and more complex and challanging realities.
No matter how you cut it, the reality at this moment in time – not 2 years, 5 years, or 30 years from now – being against Obama is being for a giant step backwards in every way imaginable. Willingly or not, ignorantly or otherwise, being for Ron Paul, or the idea that everyone is all the same, amounts to a giant step backwards in practicle results. The Republican/Tparty wants people to think, Congress is Broken, Government is Broken, All Parties are the same. In that way people stay home, or they vote for candidates that can’t win and make it possible for the worst outcome to happen.
In my view we are on the battlfield and the hoards are charging forward. And while some people are doing the fighting a lot of other people are sitting in the comfort of their rolls complaining about the flouride in the water. Pardon me if I’ll take on that issue next year instead of this.
As far as the comments about the Constitution, it is what it is, like it or not. Or should I say it is whatever you think it is. Clearly you don’t like the fact that it was designed to have a reasonably strong central government, or that the President was given powers to deal with challanging situations. It doesn’t take rocket science to know it was a compromise document and many parts (just about all of it) was made as vague as possible to get it approved. Nor do we need to be reminded that the nation was founded on slavery, oppression, and inequality.
Real progress has been made on many fronts and for many people who formerly suffered in the past. We have a long way to go to reach the place we likely all want. But you don’t get there by going backwards.
Reality: the forces of regression are willing to do anything to take us backwards – meaning getting rid of Obama. If you are not equally willing to keep that from happening just imagine this conversation 2 years from now.
The difference between an optomist and a pessimist: An optomist knows how bad things are but doesn’t give up fighting and a pessimist thinks every this is bad so they don’t bother fighting.
I’ll take being an optomist every time.
BTW Mike, I’ve been meaning to ask you – and anyone who would like to answer – is there any situation you can imagine when the President should take it upon himself to order the killing of an American citizen? In your view would that be legal under the constitution if he did or would it still be illegal?
Lets take a hypothetical example: the person is involved in a plot to use a nuclear device in your hometown and there is only one good chance to stop him. And also, what if it came out after a nucleur attack the President could have stopped him but didn’t?
Well done, Mike!
The Center for Responsive Politics keeps an eye on the money in politics with their Open Secrets web page:
http://www.opensecrets.org/
*****
Here’s a 2010 article written by Joe Conason:
The Rise of Sewer Money
New York Observer
10/27/2010
http://www.observer.com/2010/opinion/rise-sewer-money
In New York there is a traditional name for the kind of anonymous cash now cascading into the American electoral process. It’s called sewer money.
Political observers in the Empire State know that sewer money is generally nonpartisan, but in the national midterm contest, the largest amount by far is going toward the election of Republicans. Although precise amounts may never be known, thanks to the Supreme Court’s decision in the Citizens United case, reasonable estimates still can be made from research provided by Washington’s Center for Responsive Politics, which seeks to improve political and government transparency. Data from the Federal Elections Commission show that conservative, Republican-oriented “independent” groups are outspending progressive, Democratic-oriented groups by a factor of roughly ten to one so far. Organizations such as the US Chamber of Commerce, Karl Rove’s American Crossroads, Americans for Job Security and the American Futures Fund are on track to spend well over $200 million befor November 2, while the Sierra Club, Working America, and the United Mine Workers, among others, will probably spend about $80 million by then.
The center’s figures may not account for all of the spending on the right and left, but the rough proportions are accurate enough. Nobody disagrees that lifting restrictions on corporate contributions in this election has flooded the airwaves with nasty advertising in many Congressional districts that is designed to elect Republicans.
Why does sewer money matter? It’s bad enough that corporations and wealthy individuals can use their disparate resources — too often ill-gotten, for instance in the case of Wall Street banks — to influence the outcome of elections toward their own benefit. It’s far worse, however, when that influence can be exercised without acknowledgment of the real interests at work, with voters kept ignorant of the actual donors behind groups with names like “American Crossroads,” “American Futures” and “Americans for Job Security.” Those names don’t reveal anything about the intentions and beliefs of the people hidden behind them — except their need to hide and to deceive.
What does sewer money want? Usually the purveyors of hidden cash to state legislators and city council members have specific desires, such as the awarding of tax breaks or public contracts. In this election, however, the stakes are much higher, with sewer money directed toward electing extremists on the right whose views on the Constitution, the economy, and many other issues do not resemble those held by most Americans.
The sewer money candidates favor policies that have been outside the mainstream in this country for more than 70 years, including the abolition of the minimum wage, the destruction of Social Security and Medicare, and the repeal of most laws governing environmental pollution, labor exploitation, consumer protection, and child welfare. They would end the direct election of Senators, returning that function to the state legislatures, where sewer money often ensured the selection of pliable corporate stooges rather than honest public servants.
Implementing this vision of a return to 19th century standards of governance would mean a grim future for most Americans and would certainly relegate the United States to second-class status, perhaps permanently. In no sense conservative, it represents a radical departure from the consensus that built a powerful, prosperous and free nation. But it would be good for business, or at least so the benighted businessmen pumping out the sewer money seem to think.
Someone should ask Mr. Rove why the donors to his organizations are so determined to shelter their identities behind phony fronts. And then he could answer the question that cuts to the heart of American democracy at this dangerous moment. What does sewer money buy?
lzb1—Two recent, glaringly obvious examples of the erosion of our Constitutional freedoms: US citizens recently had their right to due process abrogated by the president with the Awlaki execution and by his signature on the recent NDAA which codifies his power to detain anyone indefinitely.
CAT: i didn’t ask for a specific example of what YOU think is an erosion. What I asked for is a “WHEN”. For example, for blacks living in the south during slavery or reconstruction or during segregation they were routinely deprived of those rights.
The point of course is compared to the past many groups would say they have far greater rights today then ever before. And needless to say there are many ways to “kill people”. Lack of healthcare, unfunded research, outlawing abortion even for the health of a mother, living in poverty, lack of education, pollution, lack of various regulations are all forms by which the :state” takes the life of citizens without due process. Protecting the right of business to exploit people, to poison them, to deny opportunity, to imprision them for private choices are all forms of taking away peoples rights.
“Wages of average Americans have stagnated for the past 40 years to such an extent that our middle class is shrinking rapidly.”
Adding my old stand by to Mikes excellent post.
“How has a once admired and loved leader of nations fallen from grace in such a short period of time? What has happened to a populace living in the wealthiest nation in human civilization? Why has the United States transformed itself into the malicious beast the world sees through frightful eyes?
Gluttony and materialism have enveloped all corners of the United States, from Pacific to Atlantic Oceans, from the border with Canada to the one with Mexico. The principles of consumerism and greed are all-encompassing, years ago having replaced virtues long since gone. The clandestine enslavement hidden in mass production and ever-longer working hours has in the last few decades become the value by which we measure one’s worth to society.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article15280.htm
Thanks for the excellent post, Mike. I signed the Sanders petition though I am doubtful that the amendment has any chance of passing, after all, the oligarchs will not surrender power voluntarily.
It is obvious to any thinking person that the government has been for sale for quite some time now. As Matt Taibbi wrote:
“But the ugly reality, as Dylan Ratigan continually points out, is that the candidate who raises the most money wins an astonishing 94% of the time in America.”
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/iowa-the-meaningless-sideshow-begins-20120103
At this point, I’m not sure that the citizenry can do much about it, short of a massive general strike and civil disobedience. Your vote certainly won’t bring about any fundamental change to the system, as Chris Hedges puts it:
“. . .they recognize that the political system is broken, that the commercial press, the judiciary, the elected officials are essentially wholly owned subsidiaries of the corporate state. . . “
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/12/citizens-united-amendment-repeal-tom-udall Democratic congressman Tom Udall (CO) is also working to repeal Citizens United.
Many of the issues that are raising so much alarm now, from vanishing civil liberties, endless wars with bipartisan support, taxpayers paying to bomb and rebuild entire nations in the Middle East, severe and growing economic problems creating ever-more dependence on entitlements, resulting trillion dollar deficits, multi-trillion dollar banking bailouts and other evils of our government were on the radar of some ten years ago:
Mike,
Is the problem too much wealth influencing government, or a government with too much power over society in the first place?
I’d say the latter.
MS You said “the erosion of our constitutional freedoms.” This is a constant theme on this sit. I seem to be having a hard time getting a straight answer (or any answer) on the question of “compared to when”.
I’m sure I don’t need to explain to you the word ‘erosion” indicates we had more constitutional freedoms previousely and now we have less of them. Many shills here supporting Ron Paul are suggesting that under Obama those freedoms have gotten particularly worse or alternatively no better then under Bush.
Please let me know what you are comparing today to for the purpose of the term “erosion”.
Mile has put it on the table quite well. I agree with every point. Just in case I did not make that clear.
It is not unlike a doctor going over a patient in the ER. He says an arm is broken, there are three contusions on her legs, one toe is severed, and there is some serious internal bleeding.
Those wounds are effects, results, and that type of examination is factually unassailable.
What treatment would the doctor recommend? Would it always end with treatment of the physical wounds described, or would it go further?
Would the treatment be the same if the wounds were “caused” by an automobile accident as it would be if the wounds were “caused” by jumping off a building in a suicide attempt?
Of course, in either case, the damage must be treated and repaired, but the point I am making is that the damage is not always the end of the matter. Sometimes it is the beginning.
The issues our nation faces is similar. The examination by the good Dr. Mike is spot on. We are damaged goods.
But what if these damages are the results, the effects of our thinking, as in the case of attempted suicide mentioned above?
Fixing the wounds is always fundamental, however, that fix will not prevent these things from happening again unless the nexus is followed back to the thinking problem.
We are an addicted society and our national thinking must be fixed. Our national thinking is that of an addict in many areas, the thinking of a warmongering empire in other areas.
Mike has our number.
Mike,
Thanks for the flowing news report, an alignment of words of the style and type that we rarely hear anymore.
Mike
As always your post is thorough, insightful and right on point. To take an action step, folks might consider checking out the Get Money Out movement (getmoneyout.com) and/or Move to Amend (movetoamend.org). The former organization is fronted and heavily promoted by Dylan Ratigan of MSNBC and radio host Randi Rhodes, among others, with the goal of getting all corporate and union money out of politics. The latter group seeks a Constitutional Amendment to clearly state that corporations are not people and money is not speech. Thanks, Mike.
Outstanding post, and I would agree with your core contention, of money piles having besmirched what was left of democracy in this country.
I would take your “Dark Ages” reference a step further too, because we are watching what happens in a populace losing its critical thinking skills and its connection with history and deep literacy and respect of thought and contemplation.
OS added: “One upside for those who are sane is that this infusion of unregulated money may result in the selection of the LEAST electable candidate.” Sadly, I have to disagree with this point from a functional perspective, because money has also taken over our voting process to the extent that “least electable” candidates can easily be sworn into office, courtesy of a rigged voting system answering to said money.
What happens when a people finally realizes that their voting system is, in fact, rigged? How far off is this realization?
In the dark of early morning, I am haunted by the prospect of the new Dark Age washing over the land, all the while knowing that others are rejoicing.
Thank you for your post, MS.
I have been reading that some of the Republican candidates in Iowa have been frightened by the power of this unregulated infusion of money. They discovered too late they have created a monster that has broken its bonds. The Law of Unintended Consequences at work. It goes beyond who is “pure” enough to be the candidate. It goes to who can be bought like a commodity, something the oligarchs have become very good at.
One upside for those who are sane is that this infusion of unregulated money may result in the selection of the LEAST electable candidate.
There are enormous sections of the Republican party who are terrified of a Ron Paul candidacy; then there is the “anyone but Romney faction.” Santorum is appealing to one group, but others regard him as, in his own way, crazier than Michelle Bachmann, and a guy who lost his last election contest by 19 points. The only sane appearing Republican, Jon Huntsman, is unacceptable to the large majority of ultra-conservatives, for the simple reason he is sane.
Yep, Dr. Frankenstein had nothing on those who created unregulated corporate infusions of money into campaigns. One thing they forgot to take into consideration is that money tends to flow toward power. In the USA, power naturally gravitates to whomever sits in the Oval Office. Obama, with all his flaws, is a magnet for some of that money, regardless of what the US Chamber of Commerce says. That cannot be good news for Box Turtle McConnell and John of Orange.
yes, but remember noot was not paid by fannie mae, freddie mac, or bernie mac to be a lobbyist. he was paid to be a historian.
Which issue was Transcendent? That was a lot of sentences. I think it was “follow the money”. So with the Newtster it went from public treasury to Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to Newtster to the tune of $1.6M. But I lost track of it there. The kids in my Fifth Grade group want to know (we have inquiring minds) if the Buck Stopped With Newt? Or, since he is a RepubliCon, did some trickle down? My group is in Fifth Grade and we are not allowed to cuss but will you ask the question of: Whether s___ went down hill.
Did some of that $1.6M get taxed and thence did the public get some of it back in the form of reverse osmosis? Our group is meeting today at the first morning break after learning how to read a tape measure. If there are no answers to these questions then we will decide our own answers and report back. Our group is known as The Cult of the Fifth Grade but we really are not a cult like the Tea Party or such groups.