|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
 Posted - 04/23/2005 : 13:14:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
I find the Democrats represent me just fine. I don't expect every elected Democrat in America to agree with me 100% on every issue. I choose Democrats because by and large, they hold the same values I hold. Voting for a Democrat gives us the best chance of having clean air and water, a social safety net, a secular government, and other things I believe strongly in.
I strongly disagree that Republicans and Democrats are equally to blame. Today's Republicans are financed by a huge, wealthy network of media outlets, think tanks, and corporate interests. They have unprecedented access to the public airways and public $$$$ and they utilize both shamelessly. I realize the Democrats receive contributions as well...but get real. Ain't nobody been as corporate a president as Bushie.
Adding to the level of cynicism in this country is not a virtue and it doesn't make things better, you know. 
As far as political position, the Democrats represent me as well and I agree there is a BIG difference between the Dems and the Reps in almost every area. But the Dems haven't been as organized nor as powerful as the Reps and for that I want to scream at the leadership to get some 'guts'. Why did Gore feel the need to back down over the Florida vote and why was the party so bad at countering the Rep offensive. And why did the exact same thing repeat itself in 2004?
Kerry did a terrible job in his campaign. Whether it was Kerry or his campaign crew, he failed miserably. And the exit polls differing so greatly in the Ohio vote has never been addressed. Dems just wimped out and said they wanted to, I don't know, heal the country or something stupid. I say fight to the last woman/man. The Reps are still very actively fighting the governor's race here in WA, 6 months after our Dem governor was sworn in.
The Texas gerrymandering is why we have a Rep Senate and Congress, not a shift in the country's politics. The Dems in that state stood up to the Reps but where was the national outrage?
Will we have a national outrage tomorrow when Frist goes on the air with religious fanatics with his all out attack on the judiciary to seal their dictatorship by eliminating the last potential balance of power?
Must stop....getting waaaay too upset.... |
 |
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 04/23/2005 : 13:34:55 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
quote:
But Dude, who could you put in their place that wouldn't have merely their own interests at heart? Sure, you can change the faces, but what really changes? "Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss."
Nader
Ross Perot
Nader had no national support despite his claim that it was his inability to get his message out. Perot showed his mentally ill side before he was elected.
quote:
And a few other names maybe. There are people out there who would do the job, do it well, and not place their personal interests or the interests of special interests above the greater interest of the country.
Wouldn't it be nice... I'm just not sure human nature is up to the task. I'd just be happy if decisions were science or evidence based, myself.
quote:
To bad that the DNC/RNC totally control who gets to be president. If Ross Perot had stayed in the race in '88, the influence of the DNC/RNC might not be what it is today. Ross would probably have been president if he had stayed in that election, instead of dropping out and then coming back in.
You don't think when he was asked for the details on all those charts and plans that the 'wizard' behind the curtain revealed himself? I do.
quote:
If Nader could raise $300M he might stand a shot at getting elected.
It wasn't just money. You knew about Nader, I knew about Nader. I heard his message and so did many others. The populace could have followed this guy and he would have gotten his funding. It didn't happen and I think Perot's initial following as well as perhaps Dean's shows it wasn't some conspiracy that kept Nader down. The fall of Dean, maybe, but not the failure of Nader to rise.
quote:
There are people out there, they just have little chance in the current climate of domination by the two parties.
Yes, but it is not inevitable. Major party changes have occurred in the past.
quote:
It's an ugly reality, but the office of president is up for the highest bidder, and it will remain so until we get some real campaign finance reform and eliminate the 527's that beskeptigal likes. Moveon.org, the NRA 527, etc... all of them need to go. Either that or the money needs to be limited to the same single person contribution limit that is in place for the actual campaigns.
Moveon is not just a 527. They have a large organization that includes a PAC. They have ties to the Democrats and are combining their resources. It isn't just a 'commercial' for or against something. You just couldn't be more wrong.
Moveon is a connection. People across the country are connected. Meetings are organized in neighborhoods. I have gotten together with people all over my area that I had had no idea thought the same way as I did. Callins, letter writing campaigns, and other organized well coordinated events are put together by the stroke of a key board. Meetings are connected by live web cast with each and every neighborhood group giving their feedback to the whole. This is the same tactic the Evangelicals are using through their churches. We are fighting back. |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 04/23/2005 : 13:40:21 [Permalink]
|
| I do hope Kil and Renae will log on to Moveon if you haven't already. Let me know if you have already or if you try it, how it goes. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 04/23/2005 : 14:49:44 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
I'm not a strict democrat, but I almost always vote for a democratic candidate these days. Simply because the republicans are so far away from actually being republicans that it makes me ill. It boggles my mind everytime I try to understand how so many people actually vote for them and support them.
That's probably what has soured me on politics most. It isn't just that the spin tactics, lies, and unethical behavior of republicans have tarnished democracy beyond repair, it's that they enjoy majority support. It's hard for me to admit it, but I'm beginning to feel disenfranchised within my own country. When I saw maps during election coverage that broke down party support, it seemed like there were a handful of metropolitan islands of blue in a vast sea of red states. It's like the country is swamped in ignorance. If it was just about government perhaps I could muster more outrage, but what hope can there be when the majority of Americans are so blind and deluded?
America is the most religious industrialized nation in the world. I fear we are trending toward a theocracy. And while I think that goal nearly impossible, I firmly believe religion will be the downfall of this country. We are already behind in the sciences when compared to most modern countries, and as you see more of the faith based agenda get pushed into action you will only see this gap widen. The industrial might of America has all but evaporated, with China's massive workwork and cheap labor outcompeting us in every market. As the economy plunges and the stock market dips, more and more desperate souls will turn back to the old solaces of superstition and religion. Environmental protections will be pealed back in a mad struggle to stay econmically afloat. Soon the countryside is nothing but a barren wasteland populated by wandering clerics who preach about the end times. Children starve in the streets. Men kill each other for a mere sip of tepid water. The new churches are built like fortresses to keep out the clawing, insane masses which they tithe to impoverishment. The sun is blotted out from the thick smoke that fills the sky. The wails of the foresaken never cease....
Ok, I got a little carried away just then. But, that's more or less where it feels like we're headed.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 04/23/2005 15:39:38 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 04/23/2005 : 15:51:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Nader had no national support despite his claim that it was his inability to get his message out. Perot showed his mentally ill side before he was elected.
Your personal opinion, not reality.
If Nader had the same $$ to spend as the "big" guys, he'd have been a serious contender.
Ross Perot WOULD have been president if he hadn't dropped out of the race, then re-entered. You allegation of mental illness aside.
quote:
Moveon is not just a 527. They have a large organization that includes a PAC. They have ties to the Democrats and are combining their resources. It isn't just a 'commercial' for or against something. You just couldn't be more wrong.
I have to call "bullshit" on this claim. Currently they (moveon.org) may be more than just a 527, but that is how they got their financial start, and that is their primary function. They are policically active, and there is no limit to how much money they can take from a single conributor.
If you think that shit is OK.... well, you are fully entitled to your opinion. I think it is damaging to us as a nation to allow groups like this to exist without some limit to the money they can take in and use for political purposes. Regardless of the political orientation and regardelss that I agree with Moveon.org on many issues.
IRS 527 should be changed to cap the contributions from a single person or entity to no more than the cap currently for contributions to political campaigns. That or completely ban them.
Unlimited money into politics is just wrong.
You won't even hear the likes of Limbaugh or Hannity bashing the 527. They will bash Moveon.org, but never the idea of the 527. They KNOW how effective these bastard organizations are in elections, and it allows the side with the most money to win.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/23/2005 : 18:18:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
I am a political junkie and a diehard Democrat, and I have no idea what the DNC's stand is on *anything.* I vaguely remember Howard Dean being appointed as the head, and that's all I know about them. So I am baffled as to why you think the DNC is calling the shots.
And I'm baffled as to why you'd claim to be a political junkie who knows nothing about the DNC. Do you not think that the DNC puts pressure on certain people to declare candidacy, and others to not run for office? The DNC is the core of the Democratic party.quote:
Democrats cross party lines all the time, and it's then that I'm angry with them--not when they follow general Democratic principles.
What are those "general Democratic principles?" Are they the same as, or different from, the DNC's "stand" on issues?
quote:
The Democrats, IMO, communicate their positions badly. Kerry was a fine example--a good man with a good voting record who could not convey what he stood for. But we do stand for things, and we have every right to adhere to those principles. In fact, we have a moral obligation to stand for them. If you disagree with any of those principles, you have many courses of action (letters, volunteerism, etc.)
Since I am not a Democrat, but seem to agree with Democrats on several issues (but not all of them), I would have to say that I have no freakin' clue as to what "those principles" are. Perhaps you can help me out on this issue. Do the Senate Democrats have a "moral obligation" to act childishly vindictive towards the Republicans? Is "eliminating the ability of the Senate to function" a Democratic principle?quote:
Many in this thread, however, are choosing the apathy-cynicism course of action, which contributes little and changes even less.
And what part of "oh, I'll just vote for all the Democrats on the ballot" is not apathetic and/or cynical? As I said before - perhaps you missed it - political parties allow people to take the easy way through the voting process.quote:
As for the Dems shutting down the Senate: if they do, good for them. They have been bullied, lied to, and shafted repeatedly by the Republicans. They're finally fighting back, and God help us if they don't and we get more right wing nut jobs in the courts or even on the Supreme Court.
If the Senate shuts down, things will continue to be bad for the Democrats. It won't change a thing as far as the left is concerned. It will simply drag the Republicans and Independents into the shit-hole, too. I don't like what the Republicans in the Senate are doing, but they haven't yet screwed me personally. If the Senate stops functioning, though, it's quite likely that I'll get hosed, and so will you, and so will everybody else. Your "let's get 'em back" attitude is far from a constructive solution.
I'll take an agressive, political cynic over an agressive, political, whining, short-sighted party loyalist any day of the week. At least the cynic won't advocate rash reactions to a bad situation.
Kil's mostly got me right. But I will admit that there will always be "factions" and/or "voting blocks" within the legislature. There's no way around it, as it's human nature to band together for "a cause."
However, without national political parties (with all the millions of dollars that implies), it will be more difficult for a vacant seat to be filled by someone exactly the same - or even more ideological - than its previous tenant, especially if that person did a crappy job in the eyes of the voters due to his/her ideology. 'Cause right now, if a Democrat does a crappy job for his 90%-Democrat district, the DNC can make sure a near-duplicate of that person gets into office, all the while promising the residents that it's really a "change." After all, there's no way in hell that 40%-plus of the voters are going to vote Republican out of spite (well, maybe not).
We also - apparently - need minimum residency standards so that shuffling candidates from one state to another can't happen. I was stunned that New York residents felt that Hillary could "represent" them. I was even more stunned that some Illinois residents felt good about Alan Keyes. It is unbelievable to me that someone with less than four months of residency can make any sort of claim to represent the State.
On that issue, if I had my druthers, to run for a seat in Congress, you would be required to have voted as a resident of that state in the last election for that seat, and to have resided in that state all of the intervening time, too. House members would also have to live in the district they claim to represent, that whole time. But now I'm just blue-skying stuff, so I'll stop. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 04/23/2005 : 19:36:01 [Permalink]
|
Uh, Dave, since you're not a Democrat, why are you lecturing me on what the DNC is all about? I just gave you a lot of information (which I had to look up) about how the DNC works. The DNC isn't as powerful in my view as it is in your view.
The DNC represents, is made up of, and answers to Democrats. If they don't represent you, maybe you're not a Democrat. I don't complain that the RNC doesn't represent me because I'd rather get a Brazillian bikini wax from a sadist on crack than to vote Republican. I'm a lost cause as far as the RNC is concerned.
The Democratic principles, as I see them, in no order:
1. Protection of the environment
2. Establishing, through government, a social safety net to protect the poor, the elderly, and the disabled
3. Separation of church and state
4. Tolerance and anti-bigotry
5. Civil liberties
6. Reproductive choice
7. Reasonable regulation to curb capitalism's excess
Voting all Democratic isn't apathetic or cynical. It's called having a belief system and voting accordingly. I'm weary of independents who find fault with having a coherent belief system and values that happen to fall mostly along party lines--as if there's something inherently wrong with that.
The Democrats are mad as hell, and they have good reason. The Republicans lied to them about the true cost of the Medicaid prescription drug plan, sneak legislation under the radar without fair debate, change the rules (ie the ethics committee) when it suits them, and have acted as if they had a true mandate, not the 51% that Bush actually got.
If you are outside the two parties, it probably does look like partisan bickering, pettiness, and childishness--and in some ways, it probably is. But I'm glad the Democrats are finally fighting back, because if they don't, we are so frigging screwed it's not even funny. |
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 04/23/2005 : 19:52:01 [Permalink]
|
Beskeptigal, I will check out moveon.org; I haven't visited there yet. I do read alternet, commondreams, buzzflash, and other leftist sites.
Thanks to everybody for a great thread. You really, really made me think hard.
I'm off to watch the game. Sonics in six!  |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/23/2005 : 20:50:35 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
Uh, Dave, since you're not a Democrat, why are you lecturing me on what the DNC is all about?
When did I do that? I simply asserted that the DNC is the core of the Democratic party. Do you dispute that?quote:
I just gave you a lot of information (which I had to look up) about how the DNC works. The DNC isn't as powerful in my view as it is in your view.
Your description of how the DNC works is irrelevant to my point(s) when there exist members of Congress who vote a particular way because that's what their party suggests they should do. The idea that the Democratic Party is immune to this is unsupported.quote:
The DNC represents, is made up of, and answers to Democrats. If they don't represent you, maybe you're not a Democrat. I don't complain that the RNC doesn't represent me because I'd rather get a Brazillian bikini wax from a sadist on crack than to vote Republican. I'm a lost cause as far as the RNC is concerned.
Yes, you have completely missed the point. I don't know how I can better explain it to you. It seems that even other people telling you the same thing that I am has no effect on your ability to comprehend what I'm saying.
In the last paragraph of yours quoted above, the first sentence is self-evident, and the others are simply irrelevant. If a Senator from Iowa looks to the Democratic Party for guidance on how to vote regarding a particular bill or rule, instead of looking to his/her constituents, then he/she is saying "fuck you" to the voters and putting the power of his/her vote in the hands of the DNC.quote:
The Democratic principles, as I see them, in no order:
1. Protection of the environment
2. Establishing, through government, a social safety net to protect the poor, the elderly, and the disabled
3. Separation of church and state
4. Tolerance and anti-bigotry
5. Civil liberties
6. Reproductive choice
7. Reasonable regulation to curb capitalism's excess
Great answer to a largely-rhetorical question, as what I was more interested in is how well those principles mesh with the DNC's current platform. And more importantly, how well their own "nuclear option" meshes with those principles. I don't see "screw the Republicans" specifically enumerated, though, so you've answered that question.quote:
Voting all Democratic isn't apathetic or cynical. It's called having a belief system and voting accordingly. I'm weary of independents who find fault with having a coherent belief system and values that happen to fall mostly along party lines--as if there's something inherently wrong with that.
And I'm sick of party loyalists who refuse to address the actual point which was being made, and instead attack some strawman.quote:
The Democrats are mad as hell, and they have good reason. The Republicans lied to them about the true cost of the Medicaid prescription drug plan, sneak legislation under the radar without fair debate, change the rules (ie the ethics committee) when it suits them, and have acted as if they had a true mandate, not the 51% that Bush actually got.
Yeah, I'm mad as hell about all that, too. And it pisses me off that the Democrats are so incompetent at politics as to let it all happen.quote:
If you are outside the two parties, it probably does look like partisan bickering, pettiness, and childishness--and in some ways, it probably is. But I'm glad the Democrats are finally fighting back, because if they don't, we are so frigging screwed it's not even funny.
And we'll be even more deeply screwed if they fight back using the method they've said they'll use.
A lot of "liberals" or "progressives" or whatever the hell you want to call 'em complain about the injuries and deaths of innocent Iraqi civilians in the current war. I do, too. If the Republicans eliminate judicial filibusters, and the Democrats respond as they've promised to, there's going to be a boatload of "collateral damage" which is simply intolerable to me - and ought to be intolerable to many Democrats.
Whatever the proper response is to the Republican threat, it is not that Democrats should act in any way like Republicans. But they've said that they will, and you praise them for it.
Is there anything I - a heavily liberal opponent of party politics - can say which might prompt you - a self-described "diehard Democrat" - to think critically about your own ideas?
I mean, look at what's going on in this thread: here I am, someone who agrees with every single Democratic principle which you've listed, feeling like I'm getting the same amount of thoughtful argument from you as would Rush Limbaugh if he were to start posting here. I sit here as a person who supports the Democratic ideals, but strongly disagrees with the methods employed by elected Democrats to make those ideals come to fruition, asking you, Renae, whether your chosen political party is more important to you than the principles your party stands for.
From what I've seen so far, the answer is "yes," and I think that's a bad thing for America as a whole. That's what this thread is about.
Edited to add that I began working on the above post long before you posted "Thanks to everybody for a great thread. You really, really made me think hard." I just have to say that by saying that, you've made me feel like (or at least look like) a complete jackass in stomping on your graciousness and good spirits.
Obviously, right after seeing your second post, I could have tried to cover my tracks by either altering what I wrote above, or by deleting my post and starting over. But such actions wouldn't be honest. I respect you enough to think you can handle the unvarnished stuff I've written above. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 04/24/2005 : 00:46:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dude
quote:
Nader had no national support despite his claim that it was his inability to get his message out. Perot showed his mentally ill side before he was elected.
Your personal opinion, not reality.
If Nader had the same $$ to spend as the "big" guys, he'd have been a serious contender.
Naw, man, beskeptigal's right. Nader is too weird to ever be elected. And he's too ugly. (It does matter.) He has a creepy vibe about him that doesn't translate well in the public eye. You may admire his ideals but the man is flat out unelectable.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 04/24/2005 : 05:51:40 [Permalink]
|
Actually, Dave, your assertion that any Democrat looks to the DNC to tell them how to vote is not supported by anything anybody wrote here. I don't think they *do* look to the DNC, and even if they did, why is this so evil?
My explanation of the DNC was designed to show you that the DNC platform is written by Democrats--ie, the constituents. The American people. The people you claim are not represented. I showed you that they *are* represented. Delegates to the Democratic National Convention are chosen by other Democrats--I should know; I helped choose them at Caucus.
You speak as if the parties are somehow separate from constituents. They *are* the constituents. Most everyday Democrats I know agree on most of the core issues I listed. Most want a secular government; most want to see abortion legal; most believe in a social safety net. Most elected Democrats vote this way most of the time, as I see it.
What exactly would you like a Democratic Rep like Jim McDermott here in Seattle to do? He represents a city that voted 80% for Kerry. We are REALLY liberal in Seattle. Gay bashing can get you fired from a job here. Uttering a racial slur is a good way to be socially ostracized. We're the least-churchgoing city in America. How should McDermott vote? As a moderate? As a libertarian?
McDermott wins by a landslide every year. Nobody can even touch him as an opponent. Is he "out of touch" with his constituency,then? In reality, the man is farther left than the rest of the party...and he gets re-elected every time. He even shocks me sometimes with how far left he is, and I'm pretty far left myself.
You seem to think that because I don't agree-- and as a party loyalist and I see things differently--that I don't "get it." Or that I'm wrong. Neither of those is true. You're not wrong either; you simply see life from outside the Democratic party. It's called disagreeing.
I've also acknowledged the points with which I agree: Money plays far too big a role in policy votes (ie campaign contributions and big business suckups). Partisan bickering looks worse from the outside and does not serve democracy well.
Finally just being here, on this board, means I think critically about my own ideas. I looked up what I suspected about the DNC to make sure I understood the platform process. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 04/24/2005 : 08:08:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I don't think they *do* look to the DNC, and even if they did, why is this so evil?
Because the DNC/RNC don't truly represent the constituents of the politicians. They only represent those who are active within the parties. And most of the money is comming from special interests, not average citizens. Not to mention the HUGE role that the DNC/RNC have in writing national policy and preparing legislation.
It is a problem when your politicians vote how they are told by a party without considering their actual constituents.
The MAJORITY of Americans are not so far left as Seattle nor so far right as Texas. A majority of voters might be though. But it is the responsibility of our elected officials to consider the best interest of ALL the people they represent, not just the ones that vote for them. Yes, I realize that the answer is for more people to get out and vote, but it seems unlikely that will ever happen, and the politicians know it so they ignore the non-voter.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 04/24/2005 : 08:46:21 [Permalink]
|
Just a quick reply, with more to follow:
quote:
Originally posted by Renae
You seem to think that because I don't agree-- and as a party loyalist and I see things differently--that I don't "get it." Or that I'm wrong. Neither of those is true. You're not wrong either; you simply see life from outside the Democratic party. It's called disagreeing.
No, I think you "don't get it" because you're failing to address the points I've been trying to make. You instead make irrelevant comments and tear down strawmen. In other words, you're not disagreeing with me. For examples:quote:
I've also acknowledged the points with which I agree: Money plays far too big a role in policy votes (ie campaign contributions and big business suckups). Partisan bickering looks worse from the outside and does not serve democracy well.
Had either of those been my main points, your agreement would have been appreciated. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Renae
SFN Regular
543 Posts |
Posted - 04/24/2005 : 08:54:29 [Permalink]
|
Dude, are you serious?
Politicans should honor the wishes of the non-voter over the wishes of the voter? And I suppose the politician should use his psychic ability to learn the wishes of the non-voter, whom I assume also does not write letters, volunteer, organize, serve on committees, or otherwise participate in the political process?
Party faithful types bust their behinds, Dude. They give their time, money and energy to things they believe in. That's why their views are the ones represented, not the views of the nonvoters, the whiners, and the couch potatoes. Politics, like life, rewards actions, not words.
Finally, Dave, I'd appreciate it if you showed a degree of respect in your posts. I don't appreciate the nasty tone, and because of it, I'm leaving the thread. If the nastiness continues, I'll also leave the board--which I suspect you won't shed any tears about. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
Posted - 04/24/2005 : 09:22:10 [Permalink]
|
Renea, your representative may be doing a fine job of representing his constituency. If 80% of the people are happy with his decisions, he is a keeper. If large contributors like the timber industry and Pac money and the DNC are not influencing him, he is a keeper. The fact is, the big money folks probably mostly ignore a liberal Democrat with an 80% liberal constituency since his successful candidacy is almost assured.
How he votes is a matter of public record. It is not too difficult to see if he is representing his district. My guess is that he is.
That said, many candidates must sell their souls to win an election. They become beholding to their biggest contributors, whoever they may be. Money talks. Campaigns are very expensive. They shouldn't be but they are. We know, for example, that many special interest groups and corporations, through one means or another, contribute to both sides of a campaign. In that way they can hedge their bets. Why would they do that if their money did not buy them something? If influence is something that can be purchased, where does that leave the candidates constituency?
The DNC, working for the greater good of the party is not a bad thing. But taking orders that are contrary to an elected officials goal of serving the people who elected him is a bad thing. There are candidates who have been forced to run as independents or were simply replaced because they veered from the party line on issues of a more local concern. I think it is important to point out, again, that both the DNC and the RNC are funded by some of the same companies. Some core issues have been diluted, for the parties good, because money talks.
The solution for this would be a complete overhaul of how campaigns are financed and what lobbyists are allowed to do. What gets in the way of that kind of reform is that both parties (while giving lip service to such reform) resist the kind of change that is really needed. There are so many loopholes in the reforms that have passed that nothing much has changed. Pac's are one example of how reform laws have been circumvented. Sigh…
And again (Have I said this already?) people should know how their representatives are representing them. In this age of computers, a simple search should do the job. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
