Democrats & Liberals Archives

Fifty-Seven Should Win.

In the old days, if something got fifty-seven votes in the Senate, it would have been a victory for the majority.

Clearly, we we are in a different time. Republicans have struck a blow for corporate secrecy, for people to pump millions of dollars into ads they don’t have to take responsibility for. But they certainly haven’t struck a blow for Democracy.

There is a long and well documented history of corporations with low reputations hiding behind innocuous fronts. Sound Science groups fronted information on behalf of Tobacco companies that their own "sound science" later flatly contradicted. Despite years of spread doubt by the oil companies, which fund many climate denialist groups, most experts in the field, by an overwhelming majority, take the threat of anthropogenic climate change seriously.

If it were any other group, and 90% or more of the experts in that group told you something was very likely, would you take that possibility seriously? For some reason, everybody else must be wrong. Mention that many of the groups that promote doubt are funded by oil companies, and the light goes off.

BP itself is a company with a serious credibility problem. If they said it was sunny out, many people would grab their umbrellas.

Will that company, though, just lie down and accept their lack of crediblity? No. They will try to do end runs around it, using front groups to avoid getting their message shot down before it's even off the runway.

I think people deserve to know, when a corporation is involved, who they're getting their message from, who might benefit from an action. It is the voters to whom our politicians are officially accountable, it's time they acted like it.
57 Democrats agreed. This shouldn't even be a toss-up, Given what polls say about putting limits on Corporate spending in politics.

Republicans boast that they are serving the majority by opposing what Democrats are pushing. But majorities in states and in congressional districts put Democrats in control. It all gets confused if you actually follow numbers on issues and votes. The Republicans stark pronouncements that Democrats have fallen out of step with American majorities is belied by all the different issues where they themselves departed from majorities.

The Republicans have a conflict of interest with getting anything done or done right. If Democrats fail to reform government, even with profound majorities, Republicans usually don't have to field the question they should, which is whether they're the reason a bill never comes to a vote. If Democrats succeed in reforming government, in improving conditions, well then a lot of lip-flapping about government can't do anything right looks to the American people to be what it is: excuses for incompetence and callous disregard for the needs of Americans.

If your plan in November is to simply punish a majority when it doesn't get something done, be my guest. If your plan is to punish people who get in the way of thing getting better, then there are some Republicans who deserve your attention.

Here, in this case, Democrats were not aiming to pass an unpopular measure. Nor were they short on the numbers needed to pass the bill. Yet because the Republicans cannot abide the Democrats exercising their popular mandate, their constitutionally gained popular mandate, they have thrown an monkey wrench in the works.

Majorities should not be denied the right to do the job they were elected to do by a minority that abuses the rules of the Senate to gain back the power voters deliberately took from them. The Republicans had their chances to convince people they were right. They lost. Now, apparently, their philosophy is that the rest of the country should lose until they win again. How selfless of them.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at July 27, 2010 4:35 PM
Comment #304644


Your link is dead.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at July 27, 2010 5:49 PM
Comment #304668

Remember Obama was the biggest recipient of BP contributions. Did all that money “buy” him. If not why will corporate money buy anybody else.

The Democrats are messing up big time. That is my opinion and doesn’t rise to the level of “fact” (i.e. your opinion) but maybe we will see what the people think in November.

Posted by: C&J at July 27, 2010 9:10 PM
Comment #304679


So as long as there is one honest politician, we should all are? A touch on the naive side, eh?

Posted by: gergle at July 28, 2010 8:36 AM
Comment #304680

insert assume in the right place.

Posted by: gergle at July 28, 2010 8:39 AM
Comment #304681

Link’s fixed.

I think he’s demonstrated his independence quite well, so the question of whether he was bought should be clear. We still need campaign finance reform, since I don’t want to have to trust that the people we elected are as serious about their job as Obama is.

Your approach seems to be to say that there must be some law of physics or magic principle that ensures that if Obama’s honest, then everybody else must be. I don’t see why that should be the case. What would make that a necessary consequence? What would compel that outcome?

As for your distinction between fact and opinion, opinion can be just that, and in some cases, there’s really no way to argue something with absolute certainty. Like taste in music or movies.

But there is another level of opinion, one where the person lays out their opinion in the form of a claim or an argument, where there are facts that can determine the truth value of that opinion. My opinions, while just opinions, have a certain degree of measureable truth value to them. A logical structure, if you will.

For example, if the GSE’s market share is declining as a bubble rapidly expands, you would be foolish to blame them for the bubble, since they’re obviously not the ones gathering the assets at speed- their competitors are. A bubble is built on excessive risk taking. What if they were barred from those sorts of risky loans? Well then, that’s another verifiable fact that affects the likelihood of a claim’s truthfulness.

I think Democrats have messed up, too. But I also think the Republicans are messing up, as well. The Tea Party folks like that Obama as Joker poster, but as Michael Caine’s Alfred said about the Joker, the Republicans availed themselves of folks whose politics they didn’t full understand, and now they’ve hitched their wagon to several candidates whose politics are astonishingly fringy, whose poll numbers have dropped considerably since they opened their big mouths.

I think it was bad judgment on their part. Republicans put themselves, in my opinion, in a very unstable position: blaming the Democrats for what went wrong while pushing the politics that helped get things to that bad of a place. Republicans can’t go all out the way that Democrats might, that Democrats should. If the Democrats were really on their game, Republicans should have been dead in the water.

So, really, at this point, the 2010 election is about who’s less mediocre, and the Democrats have the advantage of not having been the boat anchor, the folks who just did nothing. They also have the advantage of being an easy fit for the mainstream with their agenda. They can push a jobs agenda, a real agenda to stimulate the economy. They can oppose the Bush Tax Cuts without a Club For Growth to cut them down if they do. They can call for regulations on Wall Street, call for further Healthcare reform, which people are starting to like.

Put simply, Democrats can run on doing something. Republicans can only run on being the floored brake, and only to the extent where they can talk about being a positive impediment.

Which is why I choose to Bash your side with this little vote. There’s no redeeming value to it. You can argue that Corporations being able to buy elections, buy up media time with their unlimited fundraising is a good thing, but I wouldn’t recommend it. It’s not the world’s most popular position. Most people think corporations have too much power, and want to roll it back. Question is, who’s better position to do that, and who’s simply positioned in the way?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 28, 2010 9:01 AM
Comment #304688

C&J makes the ridiculous argument that if BP’s money didn’t buy Obama, why should one believe corporate contributions can buy any other politician.

Poll after poll of Americans perception on this issue indicate the majority DO believe the money buys politician’s actions in government. But, don’t take the people’s word for it, C&J, the vast majority of political analysts KNOW this is the case and have written extensively about it. Many conservative and liberal former politicians and government employees have exposed the truth of it as well, from Joe Scarborough(R) to Erskine Bowles(D) to David Walker(I) to Alan Simpson(R).

Corporate money funds reelection campaigns, C&J. How can you possibly consider yourself an objective observer of politics and fail to acknowledge this most fundamental driver in American politics?

Have you learned NOTHING from Blogojevich?

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 28, 2010 12:17 PM
Comment #304695


Please tell me you’re kidding.
You do realize that corporate money has been a negative influence on United States(local , state and federal) politics for some time.

If a wealthy real estate developer who gave thousands to your states Governor calls in favors that have an adverse effect on you or your family. Give your governor a call and see if one he gives a rats ass about a non-wealthy constituent such as yourself.Two would give equal thought to your plight versus campaigne cash and three ever returns your call.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at July 28, 2010 1:32 PM
Comment #304743

Andre, Stephen et al

Just pointing out that Obama was the biggest BP recipient. It is hard not to call Democrats hypocrites when they rake in the big money and then are shocked - shocked about what is going on.

BTW - How about that John Kerry and his yacht. He had it build in New Zealand - evidently nobody in New England could build to Kerry’s standards - and then he avoided taxes by docking it in RI. Democrats make laws for others to follow. And how about Charlie Rangle? Democrats can talk really pretty about taking money out of politics because they have piles of money and don’t bother to pay taxes until somebody in the media writes a lot about it.

Posted by: C&J at July 28, 2010 10:03 PM
Comment #304783

Great post, but you let C&J get you off track. This has nothing to do with giving money to politicians. That was last cycle. Now the corporations can just buy the adds themselves. Yes Steven the Republicans showed their true colors by voting against disclosure. But disclosure is just a baby step, we need an amendment to the constitution

Could you imagine someone running on the platform “I’m going to take free speech away from corporations”? That’s when you’ll see a proliferation of campaign adds by corporations.

Posted by: Mike the Cynic at July 29, 2010 8:48 AM
Comment #304788


Charley Rangle is a perfect example of why we should do away with career politicians. This guy gets elected because the people in Harlem that he represents(not really)are naive enough to believe his charges of racism and his ability to sell himself as the victim.
He’s a crook.

John Kerry is an elitist through marriage who will always be known as the only living creature on the planet unable to beat G.W.(The most ignorant, incompetent dip-shit on the planet)

The Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans. This is shocking news to you?
The difference is:
You folks need to stop excusing the GOP for being corporate whores, who seem to only be interested in big oil, pharmaceutical companies, chemical companies and the banking industry with littl regard to the poor and middle class, the environment and even the people who elect them into office. They pander to the religious with their pledges of moral superiority, only to get massages from gay escorts, visit hookers and bondage clubs.
Your party sucks. the Democrats suck.
Tea Party/GOP/Republicans seem content to be apologists for their party instead of recognizing all of it’s faults.
You folks seem more interested in keeping score and one-upmanship than the future of this country.
We need to vote out all of the bad apples on both sides.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at July 29, 2010 11:45 AM
Comment #304794

Your response to hypocrisy is not mine. You seem to believe that the solution to hypocrisy is to legalize or legitimize it. “Everybody does it!” you say.

Me? If what my people did was wrong, let them suffer for their hypocrisy. I prefer the principles to the people. If I have to push to get them implemented through flawed politicians, then I don’t see what else I can do. The alternative, your alternative, seems to me rather pointless. It’s a lot easier to get the powerful to live by the rules everybody else does if your first impulse isn’t to relieve them of the burden.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 29, 2010 2:03 PM
Comment #304795
Republican-aligned special interests have pledged to spend on the 2010 election. Just to put that in context, that’s nearly $40 million more than every interest group spent on the 2008 presidential election — combined.

The above is from a political letter I just received, and I have not verified the numbers (I’m not sure I’d even know where to get verification), but no matter the accuracy, it shows how serious Republicans have become about taking back Congress. Now, you on the right tell me most of that money comes from individual donors who are in compliance.

Posted by: Marysdude at July 29, 2010 2:14 PM
Comment #304796


Thank you Roberts court…thank you Republican obstructionists. Our elections cannot even present a facade of honesty or integrity.

Posted by: Marysdude at July 29, 2010 2:17 PM
Comment #304797


200 million dollars

I missed it on the copy to #304795.

Posted by: Marysdude at July 29, 2010 2:22 PM
Comment #304824

How about we just make the law read that you may ONLY give money in an election if you can vote in it. That means no unions, no corporations and NO OUTSIDERS. I feel you should not be able to give in a Virginia election if you live and vote in New York.

That would fix much to make them accountable to the voters.

Posted by: David B at July 29, 2010 6:28 PM
Comment #304838


Kerry must be the biggest dip-shit on the planet if he was bested by Bush, who logically has to move the second place.

Rangle is part of the Democratic culture of corruption. You guys like to go after Republicans, but the Democratic slogan now is something like “Republicans were as bad then as we are now”.

Posted by: C&J at July 29, 2010 8:57 PM
Comment #304840

Your minority leader in the house is practically selling access to himself as the future speaker of the house. If you want to talk about a culture of corruption, talk about your own. Rangel (note how that’s spelled) is about to got into a ethics trial for his actions. It’s not a culture of corruption if corrupt officials are forced to face the music.

As for Kerry? No, the real fools were the people who voted again for Bush and got the further escalation of the war, the Housing Market Collapse and economic crash, not to mention Katrina for their troubles. We warned you. We told you he wasn’t a good leader, but you guys had to protect him. For your troubles, you lost the Majority, and ultimately the White House.

And in a strange, sick, sad way, your people are still trying to bring back Bush governing principles back into fashion. Give it up. Relieve yourself of the burden that is Bush’s legacy. Quit trying to make a model of governing that is so fundamentally broking work.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 29, 2010 9:30 PM
Comment #304869


You proved my point.
We see Rangel as a corrupt outdated lawmaker who should be held accountable. We see Democrats and Republicans as part of the same team. Our Government.
You see Red/ Blue, Rep./ Dem, Left/Right as these seperate entities that you have chosen sides with. You become an apologist for one side and vilify the other. It’s stupid.

You guys call Obama our Messiah. It’s not true. He has failed on several occasions. I thought he’d do more of what he promised during his campaign. He’s our President. Yours too, even though that pains you so.

The difference is that when Republicans fail you deflect the blame on the mainstream media. You parot talking points from Rush,FOX etc. You make excuses, some bordering on the absurd. You seem unable to hold your party accountable. It’s weird and silly to watch.

Rangel should be removed immediately. Kerry is useless. Their constituency is to blame for voting for them.

You can’t wrap your mind around the fact that the United States government is failing you not a particular party.

You folks would rather have the appearance of leadership, morals and strength than those actual qualities from Republican lawmakers. You’d rather deflect and deny the truth about those you voted for. Why?
The Democrats suck right now. They’re weak and indicisive.
Can you look at you party without marching in mental lockstep with your messiah’s Rush, ORheilly, FOX etc?

Is it more important to have your party rule the country or for the country to prosper?
Is it more important for a president outside of your party to fail even though that means the country fails?
It seems like it.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at July 30, 2010 11:36 AM
Comment #304901

The nail on the head…they say they want what is best for the country, but act as though the country comes second in priority to party. I think it is because they have so little in political history that is good. I am NOT touting the Democrats as the know-all, end-all party, I’m merely observing that one side seems intent on causing a failure, so the game can come out even…stalemate.

Posted by: Marysdude at July 30, 2010 6:23 PM
Comment #304911

Stephen D., The Democrats had it in their power to change the rules to a simple majority vote for passage of Senate bills. Why did they not even seriously consider the move when they had the opportunity? Answer: Democrats don’t believe in democracy anymore than Republicans do. They both contemplate the prospect of being a minority in the Senate and tremble with fear at the thought of a simple majority winning the day. The not so funny thing about fear is, it is paralyzing; setting the stage for all manner of self-fulfilling prophecies.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 30, 2010 7:49 PM
Comment #304919


You say the county is failing us. So what do you suggest? Democrats are currently in charge. Should we vote them out? But that puts the Republicans in charge and you don’t like them either.

It is easy to say that you want the crooks out. On this blog, many Republicans said that about their guys – when they were crooks. Many here made accusations that they could not sustain.

I never liked Kerry, who is a spoiled rich guy and not very smart.

I met Rangel and always kind of liked him. I wish he had gone sooner, before he got so dirty.

Nancy Pelosi needs to clean house. She tolerated corruption in John Murtha and actively defended it with Charlie Rangel

Posted by: C&J at July 30, 2010 8:35 PM
Comment #304923

>Nancy Pelosi needs to clean house. She tolerated corruption in John Murtha and actively defended it with Charlie Rangel
Posted by: C&J at July 30, 2010 08:35 PM


Nancy needs to act on these things like Newt and Dennis acted on their respective things? A lot of fingers point at Pelosi, but she’s done less harm than most at that position, Republican or Democrat (Tip the other exception perhaps).

Posted by: Marysdude at July 30, 2010 10:41 PM
Comment #304929

Newt and Dennis are no longer in the position. Nancy is. It is the difference between history and current events.

Posted by: C&J at July 30, 2010 11:07 PM
Comment #304955

The blame-game is so, so, so old, and cleverly serves only to distract from the truth.

The blind partisan loyalists who engage in the endless blame-game are puppets for their clever puppeteers, who love to fuel the circular partisan warfare; tricking their blindly partisan puppets into cheer-leading for the incumbent politicians, while the incumbent politicians (many of which are FOR-SALE, incompetent, corrupt master parasites) continue to cheat and live off of the labor of the majority. And the corruption and numerous abuses continue to grow in number and severity.

Why should the majority of voters in this nation receive any sympathy or understanding, when the majority of voters whine and complain, endlessly, give Congress dismal 11% approval ratings, but repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Congress with 85%-to-90% re-election rates?!?

D U H !

So, all blindly loyal and partisan Democrats and Republicans; keep right on doing what you’re doing and see where it gets you. Keep right on rewarding FOR-SALE, incomptent, and corrupt incumbent politicians with 85%-to-90% re-election rates, and see where it gets you. Keep right on doing the same thing over and over and over, while expecting a different result, and see where it gets you. It will get you exactly what you deserve. You will almost certainly reap what you sow.

How can anyone, but the most blind, partisan loyalist be adequately satisfied with EITHER IN-PARTY or OUT-PARTY for the past 30 years?
But keep right on blaming the OTHER party, and keep right on wallowing in that blind, circular, partisan-warfare, and see where it gets you.

Because there is quite likely a built-in self-correction mechanism for such stupitidy. It’s called “Pain and Misery”.
And the majority of voters only have themselves to thank for it.
Especially when:

  • 45% of all 200 million eligible voters don’t even bother to vote at all.

  • Too many voters do not know who their senators and representatives are, much less those incumbent politicians’ voting records.

  • Too many voters are unaware that 99.7% of all 200 million eligible voters are vastly out-spent by a tiny 0.3% of the wealthiest voters who make a whopping 83% of all federal campaign donations of $200 or more.

  • Too many voters blindly and lazily pull the party-lever. 90% of all elections are won by the candidate (usually the incumbent politicians) that spends the most money.

  • Too many voters prefer to lazily engage in the blame game, and wallow in the blind, circular, divisive, distracting partisan-warfare, rather than admit that there is no important diffference between the IN-Party and the OUT-Party, who sabotage each other merely for political gains, instead of what is best for the nation.

  • Too many voters are delusional, and lazily believe that THEIR incumbent politician and THEIR political party is grand.

  • Too many voters think the problem is only with the OTHER party and fail to see the disturbing problems with THEIR own party.

  • It’s easier to blame the OTHER party, rather than admit-to and fix problems in one’s OWN party.

  • Too many voters whine and complain, and give Congress very low approval ratings (as low as 11%), but repeatedly re-elect and reward THEIR incumbent politicians in THEIR party with 85%-to-90% re-election rates.

  • Too few voters (if any) can name 10, 20, 50, 100, 200, or even 268 (half of 535) in Congress that are responsible and accountable, but the majority of voters continue to reward incumbent politicians in Congress with 85%-to-90% re-election rates.

  • Too many voters fail to see the insanity of doing the same thing over and over, while expecting a different result. Too many voters fail to understand that rewarding failure and corruption merely creates more failure and corruption, and more constitutional violations.

  • Too many voters are too easily bribed with their own tax dollars. Too many voters have fallen for the myth that we can somehow all live at the expense of everyone else. Too many voters want to be coddled and cared for from cradle-to-grave.

  • Too many voters fail to understand or admit how despicable it is for incumbent politicians to pit American citizens and illegal aliens against each other, for votes and profits from cheap labor. And an estimated 3% of all votes are by illegal aliens, since some states do not have or enforce voter identification. Now the federal government is despicably suing Arizona, instead of helping Arizona, and Arizona’s law is merely enforcing the laws that the federal government blatantly refuses to enforce.

  • Too many voters simply don’t care … at least, until (possibly) some day, the consequences of the majority of voters’ negligence finally becomes too painful.

There is a simple solution, that’s been right under the voters own noses, all along.
It’s not the complete solution, but it’s a damn good start, because repeatedly rewarding failure and corruption doesn’t seem to be working, does it?
And eventually, the inevitable pain and misery that’s already in the pipeline will most likely, eventually, provide sufficient motivation to do it anyway, someday in the future.
Quiite simply:

  • Stop Repeat Offenders.

  • Stop Repeatedly Rewarding Corrupt Incumbent Politicians with 85%-to-90% Re-Election Rates.

Or don’t, and see where it gets you.
Just wait and see where repeatedly rewarding failure and corruption gets you.
Just wait and see where wallowing in the endless blame game, and the blind partisan warfare gets you.
Just wait and see if you don’t suffer the consequences of decades of your own negligence, pettiness, and blind partisan loyalties.

If the voters allow it, the majority of the wealthy that abuse their wealth to influence government, and extract wealth from the majority, will quite simply continue to be wealthy; and the situation for the majority of voters will simply continue to deteriorate.
The government is FOR-SALE, since 99.7% of all 200 million eligible voters are vastly out-spent by a tiny 0.3% of the wealthiest voters who make a whopping 83% of all federal campaign donations of $200 or more; and 90% of all elections are won by the candidate that spends the most money (usually the incumbent politician).

But it appears that such logic simply makes too much sense for some people.
Because some people prefer to continue to endlessly wallow in the blind, circular partisan warfare, the mindless blame-game, and cheer-leading for THEIR party, and THEIR incumbent politicians.
Keep doing the same thing, over, and over, and over, while expecting a different result, and see where it gets you.

At any rate, the voters have the government that they elect, and re-elect, and re-elect, at least, possibly, until repeatedly rewarding failure, repeatedly rewarding the duopoly, and repeatedly rewarding FOR-SALE, incompetent, arrogant, and corrupt incumbent politicians in Do-Nothing Congress for perpetuating these abuses with 90% re-election rates finally becomes too painful.

Posted by: d.a.n at July 31, 2010 12:51 PM
Comment #305041

Corruption in congress! I am shocked, shocked I tell you. Many blame corporate America for the corruption of congress and to some degree that is true. Favorable votes on legislation favoring some corporation in return for campaign cash is not uncommon.

Why do so few blame the tens of millions who are on some form of government handout that demand and receive ever more? Is it not a corrpution of congress when members promise and deliver even more government largess to buy the vote of those making the demands at the expense of those who pay for it?

Some prominent politicians even declare their true intentions by saying they wish to redistribute income among the masses. And some on this blog would not call that corruption, the taking from some to give to others. Yet, they call it corruption when corporations enjoy this same philosophy.

There are huge battles taking place in our country and government. One side appears determined to reduce us all to the same level of misery and poverty by income redistribution by federal fiat. In effect they are saying, if we can’t all be rich, then we will all be poor together. This side does not respect idividual freedom and property. Their philosophy is one in which they believe in the “greater good” theory. They would place the property and assets of all in a huge basket and distribute it equally in the name of social justice. And, there is no end to what they beleive is justice while not realizing that the basket, when empty, will not be refilled.

The other side is determined to protect the individual freedom and property spoken of in our constitution. This side does not agree that all property belongs to the state to be shared equally. They still believe that justice demands that one’s property belongs to them, not the state. They beleive generosity with someone’s else’s money, work and property is merely government theft.

Which side will ultimately win? I don’t know. This battle could rage on for a few more decades before it will be resolved either with a return to our original thoughts on the rights of the individual, or we will become a nation with group rights in which all are equally enslaved.

Some abbhor the high reelection rate in congress. Why is the rate so high? I believe it is because the nation is nearly evenly split between “group rights” and “individual rights”. Those who beleive in the former continue to vote one way while those who beleive in the latter vote another. Is there an in-between position? Are there candidates running for office who can articulate where group rights end and individual rights begin. If there is, I haven’t found this politician.

As a conservative I want the individual rights protected and not diminished. As a liberal, I would want the group rights expanded. And so, we continue to vote for the candidate we perceive as being the most likely to promote our agenda. While this battle continues our nation declines as it can not serve two masters.

Posted by: Royal Flush at August 1, 2010 2:41 PM
Comment #305049

The vast majority of folks who receive government assistance don’t even vote. It is hard to understand how that compares to corporate shenanigans that have extremely ugly impacts on government corruption. But hey, what do I know.

Posted by: Marysdude at August 1, 2010 7:56 PM
Comment #305071

Royal Flush.

You boil it down to group v. individual in a way that ignores so many factors. If we want to simplify to the extent you did let’s keep it real.
One side the wealthiest 15% of America vs. the other 85%.
Some how the 15%ers have figured out a way to have large portions of the 85% vote against their own self interests by using ignorance, fear, wedge issues and lies.
The rest of the 85% are poorly led by government officials who either long to be 15%ers or are completely incompetent and fear the 15%ers.
If you dislike the way the country is being led vote out those who have led the longest. If you don’t like the fact that they’re of a different party, vote them out the following cycle if someone in your party emerges during his/her tenure. If you like what this person has done to change corruption and cronyism then maybe you realize how irrelivent party affiliations are.
I’m making it a point to study everything about the new lawmakers running for office and voting against the ones who have been in office furthering their own future over the future of my state. Some for decades.
Both parties suck. We need new blood. If they suck they’ve only had four years to entrench themselves. We vote them out.
Eventually we can get back to having leaders who are some of the best and brightest and not just the most financially and politically connected.

Posted by: Andre M. Hernandez at August 2, 2010 11:18 AM
Post a comment