One Issue Wonder

Campaigning on one issue is all you need, if that idea has the most momentum.

Ned Lamont's campaign centerpiece has been challenging Senator Joe Lieberman's pro-Iraq war stance. As The Nation notes:

When the votes are counted on August 8, the whole of the Connecticut primary, and much of the national debate over the direction of the Democratic Party, will be boiled down to a one-line pronouncement. It will either be "Antiwar challenger trounces Lieberman" or "Lieberman prevails over war foes."

Lamont was a political nobody before this Senate campaign but his stance on Iraq is taking him to the top. As Lieberman claims, "I am running based on my record as a progressive Democrat and...Ned is running against me based on my stand on one issue: Iraq." The Hartford Courant reports Lieberman is now trying to change his public image by "de-emphasizing Iraq."

We could take this a step further. Consider what Tom Tancredo could do in a bid for the White House in '08 stirring things up with his stance on immigration. People blast Tom Tancredo, deriding him as a "one-trick pony" with his only issue being immigration. Although he has more campaign ideas than that, immigration is in every Americans' thoughts.

One idea works.

Posted by Mike Tate at July 29, 2006 12:47 PM
Comment #171766


Great Post. One issue is the big dice. We have 2 Big Dice issues: The War on Terror and Illegal Immigration. A politician’s view on those will determine which half of our politically divided country’s votes.

Posted by: stubborn conservative at July 29, 2006 1:33 PM
Comment #171792


I have to disagree.

One issue is something that’s within the purview of extremists, left or right. Would that politics today could be so simple. As a party, if you plant your flag on a political platform with one plank, you have little to stand on and even less to grab hold of when you fall.

Posted by: JR at July 29, 2006 2:32 PM
Comment #171804

I can now see the purpose of these blogs. It is a clever plan by Progressives and Independents to show just how ineffective and dysfunctional the Democratic and Republican parties have become.

Posted by: mem beth at July 29, 2006 3:04 PM
Comment #171806

“As Lieberman claims, “I am running based on my record as a progressive Democrat and…Ned is running against me based on my stand on one issue: Iraq.”“

Lieberman is completely wrong on this. It’s far from one issue. It’s a whole host of stances on various issues, and his many Senate votes going along with the GOP that makes Joe’s claim of being a real progressive Democrat untrue. His stance on the Iraq war just happens to be the most blantantly non-progressive of these many stances — so of course Ned Lamont is going to call a more attention to that issue in his campaigning.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 29, 2006 3:11 PM
Comment #171813

Here is an extensive list of 2004 voting practices for Joe Lieberman. Read it over and decide for yourself.

Posted by: JR at July 29, 2006 3:29 PM
Comment #171814

I thought democrats/liberals always touted that the US should spend its wealth to help those less fortunate. Clearly Iraqis under Saddam were “less fortuntate”. (I certainly hope we don’t have to debate that.)

But now that we’ve rid Iraq of Saddam and try to help install a representative government in Iraq, all the while providing security for the new government … building schools … building hospitals … building sewer systems … training police and military forces …. now all of the sudden we’re “spending too much” on less fortunate people and never should’ve gone there in the first place.

Or perhaps we should’ve just Dresden’d Iraq after we got to Baghdad in 3 weeks? Or perhaps we should’ve dealt with a senile Saddam 10 years from now with who knows what insane power since UN resolutions aren’t supposed to be enforced?

Which is it oh mighty liberals who are so sure that going to Iraq was wrong? Are we too snobby to risk treasure or even life and limb to help Iraqis? … shoulda just nuked them? … should’ve ignored a crazy dictator? … shoulda relied on pre-planned and extremely limited inspections? … shoulda assumed Saddam’s “Death to America” rants were just for show even after 9/11 proved “Death to America” wasn’t a joke we could ignore anymore?

Stick by your guns Joe! We the people get so upset when politicians practice politics just for politic’s sake, but as soon as they prove they have a mind of their own it’s “What in the blimey hell is he thinkin’?” from the party he voted with a vast majority of the time. True hypocrisy from the left!

Posted by: Ken Strong at July 29, 2006 3:32 PM
Comment #171818

If Lieberman was such a loyal Democrat, why would he threaten to run independently if not nominated? What a guy? But very predictable. Most irresponsible, bought-and-paid-for politicians, these days, have only loyalty to themselves. Especially not the voters. Especially, not since a mere 1% of the U.S. population donate 83% of the billions ($2 billion of $2.4 billion in year 2000) to their campaigns. No wonder government is FOR SALE. No wonder bought-and-paid-for politicians carry the water for their big-money-donor puppeteers.

But, there may be something to the “One Issue Wonder”. If Tom Tancredo or any other candidate would secure the borders and enforce the laws currently being ignored, he’d probably do well, since the majority of Americans want borders secured, and they don’t want another amnesty, because they already see what happened after the amnesty 1986. There are equally (or more) serious problems facing the nation, but securing the borders, and stopping illegal immigration would help to resolve one of the nation’s growing list of problems.

_______One Issue Wonder______

That should be the “One Issue Wonder” of all politicians, but especially independent and third party challengers.

Hmmmm, Are they missing the boat ?

What’s going on?
Perhaps it is because they think it will backfire?
Perhaps it is because their motivations are no different than candidates running for any party?

After all, the goal is to get elected, and re-elected, fill your own pockets and campaign warchest, pad your golden parachute, and think up new ways for self-gain, and ways to make your cu$hy seat of abused power more secure.

Too bad more are not running on the promise to run for only ONE term, to turn down all big money attempts to buy influence, and promise to pass many countless common-sense, no-brainer reforms that most politicians refuse to pass year after year.

Politicians will never self-reform or pass any reforms that might limit their opportunities for self-gain, and reduce the security of the cu$hy incumbencies.

Posted by: d.a.n at July 29, 2006 3:41 PM
Comment #171829


I understand how it can be interpreted that only a rash and extreme person would vote for a candidate banking on one issue — but what if that issue is the only thing on a voter’s mind? That’s where you win.

Posted by: Mike Tate at July 29, 2006 4:39 PM
Comment #171830

Especially when voters are desparate to see congress, some day, resolve just one measely thing, and fear that our list of pressing pressing just grow in number and severity, threatening the future and security of the nation.

Posted by: d.a.n at July 29, 2006 4:44 PM
Comment #171831

Lots of talk here about immigration… Immigration is not an issue - no one cares about immigration. Someone (was it bush?) brought it up, talked it up, put it on the burner, so others started talking about it; but no one really cares about immigration. It’s just a distraction.

Posted by: myles at July 29, 2006 4:46 PM
Comment #171833

I might vote for Tancredo if he was really serious about border security … not just pitting Americans and illegal aliens against each other.

Posted by: d.a.n at July 29, 2006 4:46 PM
Comment #171834

People do care about immigration.
Polls show most Americans want secured borders, and illegal immigration stopped. And many (if not most) don’t want another amnesty.
The problem is, like with all other badly-needed-reforms discussed on the blogs every day.

Americans just don’t care enough to stop re-electing the very same incumbent politicians that ignore 99% of the voters, and only carry the water for their big-money-donor-puppeteers, of which 83% of all federal campaign donations come from (a mere 1% of the U.S. population).

Posted by: d.a.n at July 29, 2006 4:51 PM
Comment #171836


I disagree. It has become a political issue, and politicians keep harping on it like it’s going to save our nation or something. Bull.

I heard one of those call-in talk shows on the radio the other day talking about this, wondering about its importance, and NO ONE who called in cared one iota about it. No one felt their jobs were at risk; no one saw terrorists coming in with the immigrants; most said they would rather hire these people than the more costly, less productive people they otherwise had as options; and no one seemed to think it was hurting our economy (but might have been helping, due to lower prices/higher productivity, as in the previous opinions.) But overall, no one really gave a flip, and no one was going to vote for someone based on their immigration stance. The war, the economy (not having to do with the immigrants), honesty and integrity - these were the issues I heard as being important.

Posted by: myles at July 29, 2006 5:05 PM
Comment #171841

I agree and disagree.
Like I said, Americans care.
Polls show most Americans want illegal immigration stopped.
However, not enough to do anything about it.
Not enough to stop re-electing politicians that ignore them.
So, you may be right about that.
Americans are more concerned about who wins American Idol.

Posted by: d.a.n at July 29, 2006 5:17 PM
Comment #171843

I’m curious. What is that a picture of on your website?

Posted by: d.a.n at July 29, 2006 5:19 PM
Comment #171847

It’s a picture I took of a shell, and its reflection standing in a silver bowl. A bigger version can be seen here.

Posted by: myles at July 29, 2006 5:39 PM
Comment #171851

Ah…thank you. I see it now.

Posted by: d.a.n at July 29, 2006 6:07 PM
Comment #171853

D.A.N. -

“83% of all federal campaign donations come from (a mere 1% of the U.S. population).”

Not exactly true.

True: 83% of all federal campaign donations OVER $200 come from (a mere 1% of the U.S. population).

Posted by: Don at July 29, 2006 6:15 PM
Comment #171858


I just want to point out one thing to you, illegal immigration is a huge issue in certain parts of the country but not everywhere. I am sure that people in the midwest or the northeast couldn’t care less, but talk to people that live in California, Arizona or Texas. Illegal immigration has been a hot topic for years, and people in those areas who have been screaming about it for years and are finally getting heard are actually feeling vindicated by all the coverage in mainstream media. Keep in mind that there are a great many issues that mean nothing to you but a great deal to others who are more personally affected based on geography.

Posted by: Sheldon at July 29, 2006 6:40 PM
Comment #171861

I hope you are right.
I live in Texas, and the problem is serious.
Last November, a Dallas policemen was murdered by an illegal alien. There are 3.58 homicides in the U.S. per day by illegal aliens.
29% of all prisoners in federal, state, and county prisons are illegal aliens.
32% of illegal aliens receive welfare.
The net losses to U.S. taxpayers are over $70 billion per year, and that does not even include the untold cost of the crime, disease, and 2.3 million displaced American workers.

Still, you can’t much blame those that come here just lookin’ for a job.

And, politicians are dastardly.

Rather than actually solving the problem, many try to pit Americans and illegal aliens against each other.

But, myles has a point.
The subject seems to have fallen to the wayside.
Americans are more interested in who wins American Idol.
More and more, I’m of the opinion that Americans are too lazy to stand up for anything, and deserve whatever they get.

Posted by: d.a.n at July 29, 2006 6:55 PM
Comment #171863
Don wrote:
D.A.N. “83% of all federal campaign donations come from (a mere 1% of the U.S. population).”
Don wrote: Not exactly true.
True: 83% of all federal campaign donations OVER $200 come from (a mere 1% of the U.S. population).

Don. You are not very thorough at all. Before you start tellin’ everyone they are wrong, you ought to try to make sure you have the slightest idea what you are talkin’ about. Re-read the articles at the Center for Responsive Politics. Only a fraction of 1% of of all federal campaign donations came from donations of $200 or more, but 1% of all donations come from 83% of all donations for federal elections. As you can see below, donations under $200 don’t amount to much. See how education that is ?

Posted by: d.a.n at July 29, 2006 7:05 PM
Comment #171865

NOTE: The tens of millions mentioned above (donated to Republicans annually by small individual contributers), is a very tiny percent (a few percent) of the $2.4 billion donated in year 2000.

Tens of millions?
Say 30 million?
That is only 1.25% of $2.4 billion.

Posted by: d.a.n at July 29, 2006 7:14 PM
Comment #171872

I live in the southeast and around here immigration is a very big issue.
I know some lifelong Reps and Dems who will be voting third party over it.

Posted by: traveller at July 29, 2006 7:25 PM
Comment #171874

I’m was a lifelong Republican.
After 28 years, no more.
The illegal alien problem is part of the reason.
The unnecessary war with Iraq is part of the reason.
These 99 things are part of the reason.
But, both Democrats and Republcans just pay it lip service to our growing problems, but voters keep re-electing them.
I’ll be voting Independent or 3rd party for a long time to come. I certainly more Americans will do the same.
Just do what they were always supposed to do, and don’t re-elect irresponsible incumbents. How can anyone argue with that? Education is needed. Many Americans don’t realize that we’ve have now been on the wrong path for many years. What’s it gonna take? Do we have to hit rock bottom, like some cocain addict, before people wake up? Do we have to revisit the pain and misery of the Great Depression of 1929?

Posted by: d.a.n at July 29, 2006 7:54 PM
Comment #171877

I’m in Texas, have been for quite a few decades. The immigrants are a noticeable part of this area, for sure, but not a problem for it, for us. And while there are problematic members of this population, as with any other, it does not seem to be to the extent d.a.n. makes it out to be. I have a bit of a problem with at least some of those stats you presented, d.a.n., at least on the intuitive level, but I guess you got them from somewhere.

Anyway, the “real” problems of this country go far beyond the original citizenships of a few of the people walking around in it. Get to the real issues - quit stoking fires of discontent with superficial kindling.

Oh, btw d.a.n., I have never seen an episode of American Idol, and don’t know anyone who has.

Posted by: myles at July 29, 2006 8:11 PM
Comment #171886


Don’t be too quick to trivialize those that have suffered the consequences of illegal immigration.
Just think about your words if you were a victim.
I’ve visited this debate many times.
I’ve heard all the excuses.
Please feel free to try to disprove any portion of the statistics.

I am in Dallas, TX
There are over 1 million illegal aliens in north Texas alone.

  • Last November, a Dallas policemen was murdered (while on duty) by an illegal alien. This tragedy plays out 3.58 times per day somewhere in the U.S. The homicide rate by illegal aliens is 2.0 times the norm. That is the typical results of massive, uncontrolled immigration (legal or illegal).
  • In Los Angeles (year 2004), 95% of over 1200 outstanding warrants for homicide and 67% of 17,000 fugitive felony warrants are for illegal aliens.
  • PHOENIX: Television and radio stations began running ads in the Valley last week, paid for by the Coalition United to Secure America, attributing the 45% increase in homicides and 41% increase in home invasions to illegal aliens. Phoenix Police Department reports confirm those figures and Sgt. Tony Morales believes there is no doubt that the statistics are tied to illegal aliens.
  • 12/31/2002: Six-month figures revealed a 3.3% increase in violent crime in California, including a 16% rise in homicides, over the same span in 2001.
  • According to statistics by the Salt Lake City Police Department (and verified by an independent study), 80% of all drug crimes in the City are committed by illegal aliens. In Salt Lake County, the equivalent number is 50%. That’s why Congressman Cannon is on the Immigration Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee. He is working to insure that interior states, like Utah, are not overlooked in the war on illegal immigration.
  • In 2004, an average of 2,000 illegal aliens stream across our borders daily. One illegal alien in Santa Barbara, California infected 56 other people with tuberculosis as reported on April 24, 2004, by the Santa Barbara Press-News, “Anatomy of an Outbreak”
  • In 2001, 87% of deportable aliens who received run letters later disappeared; a number that was even higher (94%) for illegal aliens from terror-sponsoring countries.

Visit some of the links and research it.
The problem is much more serious than many realize.
The net losses to Americans are over $70 billion per year, and that does not even include the untold cost of increased crime rates, homicides, disease, and 2.3 million displaced workers.
Become informed before making up your mind about it. I too used to think it was no big deal. Wait until your the victim. Then you may feel differently.

NOTE: The point is not to demonize illegal aliens that merely come here to look for work. Who can blame them much for that. The point is that irresponsible incumbent politicians created the problem (Democrats want votes, and Republicans want cheap labor), placed the burden onto American citizens, and are now trying to pit Americans and illegal aliens against each other.

So the real problem is irresponsible incumbent politicians.

Posted by: d.a.n at July 29, 2006 8:38 PM
Comment #171887

More soldiers would have been nice. We had no need of total war. Rather, total control would have been good. The great irony here, and part of why Lieberman’s pro-Bush policy ticks people off, is that your brilliant, bold presidential strategy has consisted in trying to continually lowball the fight in Iraq. That’s why you’re so insistent on telling us about all the schools and whatnot, despite documented deficits in infrastructure and power.

Whether you realize it or not, you’ve signed onto a very weak style of waging war. You justify it by saying we Democrats would have Dresdened the place, but you forget something important: as much destruction as was rained on that city, the rest of the country was not destroyed, but successfully occupied. Part of the reason why this worked was that these people wanted this war over. There was no endlessly drawing this all out, trying to make a bad plan work through willfulness and stubborness.

It’s time for Republicans to do something truly bold: change course when the plan doesn’t work. Anything less is just foolishness.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 29, 2006 8:38 PM
Comment #171894

Not to mention the numerous blunders …

  • [01] Failing to build a real international coalition prior to the Iraq invasion, forcing the US to shoulder the full cost and consequences of the war;
  • [02] Approving demobilization of Iraqi Army (May 2003), bypassing Joint Chiefs of Staff and reversing an earlier position; which left hundreds of thousands of armed Iraqis disgruntled and unemployed, contributing significantly to the massive security problems American troops have faced during occupation;
  • [03] failure to equip troops in Iraq with adequate body armor and armored HUMVEES;
  • [04] ignored advice of Gen; Eric Shinseki regarding the need for more troops in Iraq; belatedly added troops, having allowed the security situation to deteriorate in exactly the way Gen; Shinseki predicted if there was an insufficient number troops;
  • [05] ignored plans from Army War College and other war-planning agencies, which predicted most of the worst security, looting, chaos, and infrastructure problems America faced in the early days of the Iraq occupation;
  • [06] bad intelligence; no WMD (Weapons of Mass Destruction) in Iraq;
  • [07] deriding “nation-building” during the 2000 debates, then engaging American troops in one of the most explicit instances of nation building in American history;
  • [08] erroneously predicting that US troops would be greeted as liberators in Iraq;
  • [09] predicting Iraq would pay for its own reconstruction with its own oil and resources;
  • [10] severely underestimated the cost of the war;
  • [11] trusting Ahmed Chalabi, who has dismissed faulty intelligence he provided the President as necessary for getting the Americans to topple Saddam;
  • [12] Disbanding the Sunni Baathist managers responsible for Iraq’s water, electricity, sewer system and all the other critical parts of that country’s infrastructure;
  • [13] Failing to give UN weapons inspectors enough time to certify if weapons existed in Iraq;
  • [14] Including discredited intelligence concerning Nigerian Yellow Cake in his 2003 State of the Union;
  • [15] Announcing that “major combat operations in Iraq have ended” aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln on May 1, 2003, below a “Mission Accomplished” banner – more U;S; soldiers have died in combat since Bush’s announcement than before it;
  • [16] Awarding a multi-billion dollar contract to Halliburton in Iraq, which then repeatedly overcharged the government and served troops dirty food;
  • [17] Refusing to cede any control of Post-invasion Iraq to the international community, meaning reconstruction has received limited aid from European allies or the U.N.
  • [18] Failing to convince NATO allies why invading Iraq was important;
  • [19] Having no real plan for the occupation of Iraq;
  • [20] Limiting bidding on Iraq construction projects to “coalition partners,” unnecessarily alienating important allies France, Germany and Russia;
  • [21] Diverting $700 million into Iraq invasion planning without informing Congress;
  • [22] Shutting down an Iraqi newspaper for “inciting violence”; the move, which led in short order to street fighting in Fallujah, incited more violence than the newspaper ever had;
  • [23] Telling Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan about plans to go to war with Iraq before Secretary of State Colin Powell;
  • [24] Allowing several members of the Bin Laden family to leave the country just days after 9/11, some of them without being questioned by the FBI;
  • [25] Focusing on missile defense at expense of counterterrorism prior to 9/11;
  • [26] Thinking Al Qaeda could not attack without state sponsors, and ignoring evidence of a growing threat unassociated with “rogue states” like Iraq or North Korea;
  • [27] Threatening to veto the Homeland Security department; the President now concedes such a department “provides the ability for our agencies to coordinate better and to work together better than it was before”;
  • [28] Opposing the creation of the September 11th commission, which the President now expects “to contain important recommendations for preventing future attacks”;
  • [29] Denying documents to the 9/11 commission, only relenting after the commissioners threatened a subpoena;
  • [30] Failing to pay more attention to an August 6, 2001 PDB entitled “Bin laden Determined to Attack in U.S.”
  • [31] Repeatedly ignoring warnings of terrorists planning to use aircraft before 9/11;
  • [32] Appointing the ultra-secretive Henry Kissinger to head the 9/11 commission; Kissinger stepped down weeks later due to conflicts of interest;
  • [33] Asking for testimony before the 9/11 commission be limited to one hour, a position from which the president later backtracked;
  • [34] Not allowing national Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice to testify before the 9/11 commission, Bush changed his mind as pressure mounted;
  • [35] Cutting an FBI request for counterterrorism funds by two-thirds after 9/11;
  • [36] Telling Americans there was a link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda;
  • [37] Failing to adequately secure the nation’s nuclear weapons labs;
  • [38] Not feeling a sense of urgency about terrorism or al Qaeda before 9/11;
  • [39] Failure to secure ports and borders allowing millions to trespass our borders each year; Wait until terrorists get WMD. There will be nothing to stop them.
  • [40] Reducing resources and troop levels in Afghanistan and out before it was fully secure;
  • [41] Not providing security in Afghanistan outside of Kabul, leaving nearly 80% of the Afghan population unprotected in areas controlled by Feudal warlords and local militias;
  • [42] Committing inadequate resources for the reconstruction of Afghanistan;
  • [43] Counting too heavily on locally trained troops to fill the void in Afghanistan once U;S; forces were relocated to Iraq;
  • [44] Not committing US ground troops to the capture of Osama Bin Laden, when he was cornered in the Tora Bora region of Afghanistan in November, 2001;
  • [45] Allowing opium production to resume on a massive scale after the ouster of the Taliban;
  • [46] Opposing an independent inquiry into the intelligence failures surrounding WMD – later, upon signing off on just such a commission, Bush claimed he was “determined to make sure that American intelligence is as accurate as possible for every challenge in the future;”
  • [47] Bush saying: “We found the weapons of mass destruction; We found biological laboratories”. Did you see the so-called biological laboratory? There was nothing in it. No WMDs have been found.
  • [48] Trusting intelligence gathered by Vice President Cheney’s and Secretary Rumsfeld’s “Office of Special Plans;”
  • [49] Spending $6.5 billion on nuclear weapons this year to develop new nuclear weapons this year; 50% more in real dollars than the average during the cold war, while shortchanging the troops on body armor;
  • [50] Ignoring the importance of the Middle East peace process, which has deteriorated with little oversight or strategy evident in the region;
  • [51] Siding with China in February, 2004 against a democratic referenda proposed by Taiwan, a notable shift from an earlier pledge to stand with “oppressed peoples until the day of their freedom finally arrives;”
  • [52] Undermining the War on Terrorism by preemptively invading Iraq;
  • [53] Failing to develop a specific plan for dealing with North Korea;
  • [54] Abandoning the United States’ traditional role as an evenhanded negotiator in the Middle East peace process;
  • [55] leaking top secret information;

Posted by: d.a.n at July 29, 2006 8:54 PM
Comment #171912

D.A.N. - The website you recommend is a wonderful source of information…if YOU would just read it.

“Less Than One-Tenth of 1% of Population
Gave 83% of ITEMIZED Contributions…
The Federal Election Commission requires the recipient of any donation of more than $200 to itemize the contribution…”

So, how many people donated less than $200 (those which were not itemized) at the last election cycle? Does your website say?

Does that still add up to less than 1% gave 83%? BTW, the figure reports the % of total population; but babies don’t contribute much to political campaigns usually, do they?

The real question is what % of ACTUAL VOTERS contributed any amount? My guess, about 5-6%.

I stand by my earlier post.

Posted by: Don at July 29, 2006 10:07 PM
Comment #171937
Don wrote: D.A.N. - The website you recommend is a wonderful source of information

Great! You’re welcome.

Don wrote: … if YOU would just read it.

Don, you should take your own advice. I’m not even sure now what your disputing ? Are you saying the report from is wrong ?

Don wrote: “Less Than One-Tenth of 1% of Population Gave 83% of ITEMIZED Contributions

Agreed. That’s what the report from states.

Don wrote: The Federal Election Commission requires the recipient of any donation of more than $200 to itemize the contribution…”

Agreed. That’s the criteria for the report. Never said it wasn’t.

Don wrote: So, how many people donated less than $200 (those which were not itemized) at the last election cycle? Does your website say?

Don, I don’t know the number of donators of under $200 or less, and it isn’t in the linked report, but it states (above; below the pie chart) that the total number of donations below $200 is far greater in number, but the total sum of money is insignificant. It states the sum to about 13% to 21% (average of about 17%)

Does that still add up to less than 1% gave 83%?

All donations of any amount (based on a separate report, which I’ll provide the link to as soon as I find it) states that 83% of all donations were from 1% (not one tenth of one percent) of the total U.S. population. Also, that is corroborated by the pie chart above, and the statement above which states that the donations under $200 range from 13% to 21% (an average of about 16.25%) of all donations. Thus, 83% = (100% - 17%) .

Don wrote: BTW, the figure reports the % of total population; but babies don’t contribute much to political campaigns usually, do they?

Now you are just trying to cloud the issue. No one ever said babies voted, or tried to misrepresent the data. The percentages are based on total population. That’s all. Like it or don’t like it.

Don wrote: The real question is what % of ACTUAL VOTERS contributed any amount?

Yes, that data would be nice to have, but I don’t have it, and never claimed to, nor see the relevance of your unfriendly statement above “if YOU would just read it.”

Don wrote: My guess, about 5-6%.
That is a severely low estimate. I don’t have the actual number, but I would guess the total number of contributions of less than $200 to be around 60% of the total U.S. population.
Don wrote: I stand by my earlier post.

Good for you. I stand by my post which is based on the report from

So, what’s your beef ?
Are you disputing the report ?
If so, fine. You have the right to believe anything you want.

Posted by: d.a.n at July 29, 2006 11:33 PM
Comment #171998

I have to agree, that most voters use only one issue and go from there. I have a friend who is big gun nut, and to him the 2nd addment is the most important issued, and he looks for the candiate who is pro-2nd.
Here in Mi the issue between the 2 candiates is jobs or lack of jobs. I can’t remember seeing any other commerical from either party on gas prices,ecology issues,school issues,illgeal aliens, etc. So if only one issue is out there and thrown at you all the time, it can become the main issue, and not the overall person who is running.
Unfortunately Joe has chosen a path that is different then his party and he has stood for it all the way(not saying it is correct), but at least he has the ba**s to stand tall with his decision. I hope he wins by a large margin.

Posted by: KT at July 30, 2006 10:00 AM
Comment #172015


You’ve got it!

For example: Competing Republicans in the primary may seem like “cookie cutter” Republicans, except it will usually be one issue that will differentiate each of the candidates.

Posted by: Mike Tate at July 30, 2006 11:34 AM
Comment #172037

Sometimes there is only one issue to run on. But that hasn’t been the case lately. There are to many problems going unaddressed to just pick one issue.
But then I heard one of our state politicians say that the public lacks the attention span to listen to more than one issue. And I tend to agree to a point. Folks are so busy with their day to day lives that they tend to tune out anything that doesn’t directly affect them.
So the politicians pick one or two ‘hot topics’ and harp on them. Never mind the growing debt, out of control spending, the shipping of our jobs overseas, or the fact that for the last 60 years the government hasn’t done jack to stop illegal immigration. All they’re going to concentrate on is how they’re gonna get tough on illegal immigration. And the public is falling for it.
And all they’re doing is taking attention away from the other pressing problems and their failure to address them. And regardless of who wins I’ll bet after November we won’t here another thing about illegal immigration. And it’ll become an even greater problem.

Posted by: Ron Brown at July 30, 2006 1:10 PM
Comment #172039
Ron Brown wrote: There are to many problems going unaddressed to just pick one issue.

Yep, and they are growing in number and severity.

But, while we are all bickering about this and that, there is possibly a much bigger disaster that is not far away. Currently, the U.S. (with 299 million people) produces 25% of carbon dioxide emmissions (the most of any nation). But, China (2nd after the U.S.) and India, each with about 1 billion people, are about to change that drastically. China is starting the construction of a coal/oil power plant once per week.

We should have started doing something about the emmissions 50 years ago, but we had better start doing something about it now (immediately). Otherwise, it may not be long before we can not avoid causing all coastal cities to become submerged as the ice caps melt.

It’s like we are trying to fix a burned-out light bulb on the ship, while the ship is sinking. It makes no sense.

But, how can reforms ever take place when government is corrupt and irresponsible, and voters keep re-electing them? Only education can ever improve the situation.

Posted by: d.a.n at July 30, 2006 1:16 PM
Comment #172041

good gosh, d.a.n, judging from your sites, you have put some blood sweat and tears into your causes celebres! Way to go! I may not agree with everything you have said, but I applaud your work.

Why don’t you get after the health insurance (actually all insurance) causes now! Energies like yours should not be left idle!

Posted by: myles at July 30, 2006 1:17 PM
Comment #172044

Here’s something on insurance.

Posted by: d.a.n at July 30, 2006 1:21 PM
Comment #172045

wow… and so you have… when do you sleep? lol

Posted by: myles at July 30, 2006 1:41 PM
Comment #172047

Whenever I’m not awake. : )
I checked out your site.
Looks like you put a lot of work into it.
The Leviticus thing is hilarious.
I first saw that once on the watchblog
by a guy named “James D.” , but I’m not
sure it was an original work by him, and
the first item was different:

(1) Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine insists that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

Posted by: d.a.n at July 30, 2006 1:50 PM
Comment #172048

yeah, that’s #4 on the copy I have

Posted by: myles at July 30, 2006 1:56 PM
Comment #172054

Ah, I see … (1) and (4) were swapped on my copy.

The “One Issue Wonder” thing is getting harder to do as the list of problems grows.

Healthcare is a serious issue.
It was, not too long ago, affordable.
What happened?
Too many middlemen and government mismanagement.
Too many frivolous, junk science law suits, and fraud.

I’m just not at all sure government involvement is a good idea at all. They have a knack for screwing up anything they touch (which is practically everything). Look how they mismanage Social Security. It is $12.8 trillion in the hole, and they continue to plunder the surpluses, and replace them with worthless government bonds. And that brings up another pressing issue. The Federal Reserve is printing too much money. In 1950 there was $150 billion of cash in circulation. By 2000, there was $6.9 trillion in circulation. Where did the money come from? They printed it. We have a bad monetary system. That’s why we have ever-present inflation, which erodes the value of currency, and we have been brainwashed to think some inflation is OK. But, none of that may matter much after the next economic meltdown. Recessions come and go every 2 to 11 years for the last 46 years. The massive $8.4 trillion National Debt, $12.8 trillion Social Security Debt, trillions of unfunded Medicare liabilities, and the PBGC $450 billion in the hole (a sum total of $21.65 trillion), and $20 trillion of personal debt (nation wide) are not going to make recovery from the next recession easier. Not with increased competition abroad, massive debt, etc.

That $21.65 trillion of debt will eventually catch up with us.

The problem is, lots of reforms are needed, but politicians won’t implement even the most common-sense, no-brainer reforms. So they do nothing, and problems grow in number and severity. Politicians are irresponsible, but we keep re-electing them !?

Posted by: d.a.n at July 30, 2006 2:19 PM
Comment #172070

The New York Times endorsed Ned Lamont today.

In the endorsement they claim, “This primary would never have happened absent Iraq.”

Posted by: Mike Tate at July 30, 2006 4:11 PM
Comment #172103


Many of your theories have been proven false. For example, many Iraqis loved to see us get rid of a dictator that starved and tortured them, but #55 is what really makes me mad at liberal propaganda. The NYT screamed the information in an attempt to jeopardize the war on terror and make Bush look responsible. I didn’t think the latter would work, but you proved me wrong. Now I ask: “Why isn’t the NYT out of business and the people responsible for the leak still walking on this earth?

Posted by: stubborn conservative at July 30, 2006 6:48 PM
Comment #172181

I CARE about the Illegal Alien problem, myles. And I will vote for anyone of any party whom I think will solve the problem (to me ‘Solution’ is not letting them stay).

Illegal Aliens are the most:
- crime-focused
- drug-involved
- violent
- law-breaking
- un-American
- un-assimilating
- un-educatable

group ever to arrive on our shores.

I feel letting these people stay here is FAR worse to America than anything that can happen in Iraq (Iraq will change for the better/worse over centuries … but if we allow these Illegals to stay here and have children who are ‘Americans’ legally (but maybe not in many other ways), we will never be able to undo this damage they cause us).

Posted by: Repvblica at July 31, 2006 12:40 AM
Comment #172243
stubborn conservative wrote: d.a.n.: Many of your theories have been proven false.

Which ones? 55 is true. Someone in the government has leaked top secret information (i.e. agent Plame). Those are the facts. If not, prove it.

stubborn conservative wrote: For example, many Iraqis loved to see us get rid of a dictator that starved and tortured them,

Some did. Some don’t. And, as Iraq descends into civil war, those numbers will worsen.

But, nowhere in the list of 55 things above did it allege some Iraqis were not glad to see Saddam gone.

stubborn conservative wrote: … but #55 is what really makes me mad at liberal propaganda.
[55] leaking top secret information;

That’s a fact.
Where’s the propaganda?
Someone in the government has leaked top secret information (i.e. agent Plame).
It happened and has happened many times. Those are simply the facts. Disprove it if you can.

The main point is, our leadership (if that is what you want to call it) is pathetic. That includes both parties, because both consist of too many irresponsible, bought-and-paid-for, greedy, incompetent, selfish incumbent politicians.

But we keep re-electing them ! ?

stubborn conservative,
Betty Burke would love you. By the way, I am a centrist/moderate. I used to be a Republican for 28 years, until about 18 months ago. But, I have no desire to join the Democrat party either. I am sick of both merely taking turns being irresponsible, gettin’ theirs, fleecing the voters/tax payers, peddling influence, trollin’ for big money, being FOR SALE, and ignoring the voters. Parties are not the solution. And why shouldn’t politicians be irresponsible. We, the voters, have programmed politicians to be irresponsible, by re-electing them as they grow more and more corrupt. No wonder they are irresponsible. Duh !

What if Democrats and Republicans truly considered each others’ criticism ?

Have you ever noticed that members of both parties are often split on the same issues?

Are the parties really that vastly different?

Are Democrats really for the working man/woman?
If so, what’s up with the minimum wage, and falling incomes for many years? Why does it take two incomes where one was once sufficient? What went wrong?

Are Republicans really for smaller government?
If so, why has government grown drastically in the last 6 year? Many of the jobs created (140,000 between 2000 and 2004) were in the federal government. How is that smaller government, when it continues to grow to nightmare proportions?

Could it be that neither care any more?
Are incumbent politicians really concerned about the welfare of the nation? If so, why does it seem as though they are mostly interested in finding opportunities for self-gain, padding their golden parachutes, and securing their cu$hy, coveted seats of abused power?

Why do voters have such a dismal view of incumbent politicians?
Is it deserved? And, if voters aren’t happy with the incumbent politicians, why vote to re-elect them? Why empower the very same persons that are cheating you, defrauding the tax payers, writing hot checks, squandering and wasting tax payers money, eroding tax payers savings with constant inflation, and ignoring the nation’s problems growing in number and severity ? Are voters being controlled ? Afterall, 83% of all money from federal campaign contributions come from only 1% of the U.S. population. Is that fair to the remaining 99% of the U.S. population?

So, perhaps we already have a government that is truly Of / By / For The Sheople.

I agree that it is one of the top ten most important issues facing the nation.

Want to help? Visit and use their facility to FAX your congresspersons. It only takes a few moments to click a few things, and it is free.

Also, none of the many reforms discussed here daily will ever occur until voters stop re-electing the very same irresponsible, bought-and-paid-for, incompetent incumbent politicians.

  • Stop Repeat Offenders.
  • Don’t Re-Elect Them !
Posted by: d.a.n at July 31, 2006 9:30 AM
Post a comment