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.
@Gene: I haven’t missed that point and I completely agree that corporate money in politics is a big problem. Why assume I miss that point? I just do not think more money in campaigns, as a result of CU, will, in practice, translate into a difference at the polls.
If billionaires spending tens of millions of dollars on their own campaign and saying exactly what they want to say still stumble and fail as frequently as history suggests they do, then I don’t see corporations spending on behalf of politicians without any coordination are going to do any better.
If somebody wants to argue they are secretly coordinated, then they are arguing that an illegal activity is going to affect the election, and that is corruption. But even if they were coordinating, I do not think it makes a lot of difference. Billionaires with complete control over their message stumble and fail, that is the equivalent of 100% coordination, and it doesn’t help. How will the corporations do any better than the self-made billionaires that have tried and failed?
I really do not think people are swayed much by political ads, everybody I know figures they are full of lies and politicians are just liars. That’s why Congress is in the single-digit approval rates. Why would bombarding people already numb to political ads with more ads work? It will just make them more numb, if they identify with a party, no ad will ever make them vote against their party.
As for independents, I do not know many, but I do know one that votes on charisma and another that votes strictly anti-incumbent. That is anecdotal, I know, but they won’t be swayed by ads either.
Whether CU was correctly decided in terms of current law is not the end of the issue. As Gene H rightly points out, the whole thing rides on the coattails of an incorrect, illogical assumption. However, since such incorrect assumptions can be made, we as Americans can decide whether these erroneous assumptions indeed represent our values (NO) and then deal with them.
There are strong and important efforts being lead by well repected people such as former Wisc. Sen. Russ Feingold or Dylan Ratigan to clearly define and designate by Constitutional amendments that A) corporations are unambiguously NOT PERSONS and to B) remove ALL corporate and union contributions to, at least, federal campaigns.
Thank you, junctionshamus.
@S-Mom – If you need anything beyond my puerile pithiness, just click on the blue “junctionshamus”
Bob
Tony,
Even if I agreed with you about the effect of political spending (and I don’t), I think you’re missing the point biggest failing of CU.
Corporations aren’t people. They aren’t even democratic organizations. Expanding their personality and access to the political and legislative processes is inherently dangerous to democracy. I dare you to look at the corruption problem endemic to the professional lobbying industry and to come to a reasonable and rational conclusion other than than corporations and their influence in electoral and legislative processes isn’t at the root of nearly all of our current corruption related issues of governmental malfunction and malfeasance. Allowing them greater political free speech can only exacerbate the problem.
“Well, then I for one am not certain where that point is when a politician like Jerry Brown can be outspent 265 to 1 (at one point in his campaign) and still be ahead in the polls.”
Tony,
Whitman was a very unlikable candidate, with nothing to recommend her but EBay.
Off topic but how bout the new trailer to the movie that will begin to stir some controversy. Sunshine is the best disinfectant and daylight helps with sunshine as long as you finish before the call to prayer.
Anybody want to talk about global warming 🙂
Mike S,.
I have seen those same manipulations in office politics as well as used in other contexts….. It appears that some have the philosophy that you are either like us or you are against us….. Sophomoric at best….
Woosty, I could through these threads for the last six months and compile a greatest hits list of sockpuppet attacks on me. lol
@Mike S: What you say is true, but only up to a certain point. [emphasis mine].
Well, then I for one am not certain where that point is when a politician like Jerry Brown can be outspent 265 to 1 (at one point in his campaign) and still be ahead in the polls.
That was the point of my post, I don’t believe the assertion that overwhelming money or ads influence the press coverage to the point of swinging an election. Sure, Whitman was treated as a “real” candidate, but Brown was not treated as a “fake” candidate for lack of money.
I am also not convinced ad buys or campaign cash are a proximate cause of treating candidates “seriously.” It seems to me if that were true, Perot and Forbes and Howard Dean would have been treated more seriously than they were, and perhaps other candidates (like Santorum or Gingrich) less seriously than they have been.
I do not think campaign money can buy an election, or even influence the vote more than a few points, so I am not overly concerned that CU is a game changer.
Woosty, I pick the vibe up earlier than I used to – creepy. Jordan wasn’t the usual one that posted as my address last week but he was familiar. Not as Insane is my all time favorite attacker. He even mentioned my deceased friend’s daughter.
Anonymously Yours 1, March 5, 2012 at 4:35 pm
Dredd,
That sounds like Words to Rush…..
============================
Definitely words to Rush by.
There are two parts to JT’s embracing of CU v FEC:
Historically, the weakness and plasticity of the majority reasoning is that corporations have zero history, in terms of our foundations, our origins, to support this decision. Free speech can be free as hell for citizens, and it should be, but corporations are fictions of state law designed to limit liability. Which goes back to immunity, which is the absence of accountability, which is anti-democracy, because if you can not hold a politician or other entity to account, then that entity can do no wrong. That is a concept derived from “the king can do no wrong” and “the pope is infallible.” (IOW, the genetic material in bullshit).
“Using “sweetie” to address a woman, is the equivalent of using “boy” or “little guy” to address a man. Dishonestly insulting and patronizing, Jordie.”
Nothing dishonest at all about it, Mikey. I intended to be patronizing. Had you found fault with others for being patronizing, or not done the same yourself, on numerous occasions, you might have a legitimate gripe. As it stands, you’re just exposing your own hypocrisy.
I hear sirens. The fleet must be arriving. 🙂
“As it stands, you’re just exposing your own hypocrisy.”
Jordie boy,
Nothing hypocritical about it. I only insult people who sling insults and I do it to them in a manner befitting the insults they sling. You came here not with the intent of discussing anything, but merely to garner some sadistic pleasure by attacking someone via patronizing them. You’ve got no history here, she does and it’s a good one. Ergo you’re an ass. Not for disagreeing with her, but for doing it in an infantile manner. Now I don’t really know what sex you are, but probably you’re a male. While I suppose there are some women that find a superior, patronizing attitude in a man attractive, most woman of intelligence would find it a complete turnoff. So there is a probability that you either stick with women with low self-esteem and bully them in the process, or you simply don’t get laid. I the end the fact remains that men who call women “sweetie” are lousy in bed, know it in their hearts and try to make up for it by being patronizing.
S’Mom,
that was an obvious personal attack…..if it wanted to join the conversation it wouldn’t have singled you out.
You handled the situation brilliantly, thanks for showing how it’s done!
Dredd,
That sounds like Words to Rush…..
Thanks guys. You get some really good guys on here and for use of a better word – some freaks.
@Mom – Trying to bring some levity to a bad situation, didn’t realize things had gone that far.
Wanted to say, “Mom, don’t buy into it,” and to Jordan, “Don’t be a condescending douche-load, Snookums”, but that would be getting down to his level, so I’m not going there.
And Jordan, if that’s your real moniker… S-Mom, for all I might have agreed or disagreed with, has contributed far more on her worst day than most on this list. I’m not standing up for her, I don’t have too. She can stand up all on her own.
Anonymously Yours 1, March 5, 2012 at 2:15 pm
See dredd, she secretly desires to be one who has the ability to think outside the sandbox…. She’s coming along…. Not everyone can do it at breakneck speeds….
=======================================
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!” – Upton Sinclair
Using “sweetie” to address a woman, is the equivalent of using “boy” or “little guy” to address a man. Dishonestly insulting and patronizing, Jordie.
Mike,
Wouldn’t it be kinda funny if a master politician knew how to appeal to the emotional nature of the voters and JEB got in…. And this had been really a dog and pony show at their amusement…. It’s not like they are afraid to spend taxpayer dollars..
“Wouldn’t it be kinda funny if a master politician knew how to appeal to the emotional nature of the voters and JEB got in…”
AY,
I think that is what is going to happen and it won’t be funny for any of us.