A couple of past students went to the debate between Ann Coulter and Lawrence O’Donnell and were surprised b one exchange. Despite being continents apart, I became a point on which Coulter and O’Donnell agreed. While some would say this is a sign of the apocalypse, I say it is merely an expression the great unifying healing force that I send throughout the world.
One student sent me this tape, which was taken at a bit of a distance. Around the 40 mark, O’Donnell agrees with my take on the Citizens United case. I am told that Coulter then also agreed with my take, though it comes in part 5 of the tape (which my student could not locate).
This has opened up a whole new horizon for me. In light of my success in uniting Coulter and O’Donnell, I have decided to first move on to the Middle East to open talks between Iran and Israel. Following resolving that dispute this week, I will tackle the more difficult and potentially explosive Martha Stewart/Rachel Ray divide.
I have been advised about the identity of the poster and also the violation of privacy that is involved.
That’s right, S Oak.
The vacation is over and the one sided psychodrama commences.
Last week one of them posted the name of the street that I live on.
junctionshamus, Sorry if it bothers you but I am not going to let some cyber bully call me “sweetie” om a blog.
Gene,
All elections should be publicly funded to remove all money from politics. That is the only way the level playing field can be attained. The Super Pacs need to be reined in and at the least, be required to disclose who contributed and how much, to the penny.
Hey, some bodies better knock it off, or the Professor is going to turn this thread around and go back home…
Tony C.,
You’ve taken the point to the extreme, but I think that what I’m addressing isn’t the “common wisdom that ‘Enough money can elect a ham sandwich.'” Of course candidate appeal figures into the equation and no amount of money can buy the election for someone manifestly unlikable like a Meg Whitman or a Newt Gingrich. I’m addressing simply the undue influence of corporations (who, and I think you agree with me here, are not real people but rather amoral legal fictions subject to manipulation by sociopaths and psychopaths) and the general unbalancing effect money can have on communication. The need for a level playing field where the ideas are the focus and not who can spend the most money to shout down their opponent and limiting the influence of organizations with no loyalty or duty to the American public’s best interests.
Sweetie? Your yuck factor is very high.
“Jordan, Don’t want to have a discussion with you about anything.”
Of course you don’t, sweetie. That would entail cogitation and that would interfere with your role as Kitty Kut and Paste.
Jordan, Don’t want to have a discussion with you about anything.
Swarthmore mom,
“Aren’t you the one that called me an “idiot” and something worse under another name?” -No.
“Corporations are not members of society”.
Is that the extent of your concurrence with Justice Stevens?
Jordan, Aren’t you the one that called me an “idiot” and something worse under another name?
Jordan, I am bright enough to know you sound familiar.
Jordan, I already answered you. I read the decision. Now it’s your turn.
Swarthmore Mom,
I think the question was pretty clear. What part of Justice Stevens opinion do you agree with?
If you think I’m pointing at you while laughing, I am. I don’t think you’re bright enough to think for yourself. That is exactly why I don’t think you can identify the portion of Justice Steven’s dissent with which you agree. Prove me right or prove me wrong.
@Gene: As far as CU is concerned, I am not convinced of the common wisdom that “Enough money can elect a ham sandwich.”
Meg Whitman spent $140M of her own money in the California Gubernatorial election, in addition to donations to her campaign. She outspent Jerry Brown EIGHTY SIX to one. At one point, she had spent $100M on her campaign advertising versus Brown’s $377K. She still lost to Brown (who is 72 years old) by several points.
Rich self-funding candidates have a spotty success record; Perot, Corzine (elected but then rejected), Forbes, even Romney (a 1/3 billionaire) is somewhat hit and miss, he actually lost Iowa despite outspending Santorum, the winner, by millions.
I agree corporations are not people and I think CU was wrongly decided, but I do not see why corporate spending on elections would have any better success than billionaires spending on their own campaigns. I think it still comes down to candidates. As (I think) Brown proved, after some relatively modest level of advertising, awareness plateaus and the rest of the job is basically salesmanship, charisma, and the predisposition of tribes. For Meg Whitman, money did not buy likability.
“Meg Whitman spent $140M of her own money in the California Gubernatorial election, in addition to donations to her campaign.”
Tony,
What you say is true, but only up to a certain point. Money not only buys ads, but it influences the press coverage. With what was known about the background of G.W. Bush, he was supremely unqualified, yet the power of his family and his supporters scared the media so much that they mostly ignored it and he seemed on an equal footing with his opponents. Romney is simply not a likable person and therein lies his difficulty. Santorum comes off like a fool and no one trusts Gingrich. Now if Jeb Bush gets nominated, at a deadlocked convention, he will seem like the Second Coming. I’m just sayin……
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZX.html Read the decision, Jordan. Corporations are not members of society.
Jordan, You must be a southerner.
Justice Stevens and the dissenters rather than the republicans on the court.