Third Party & Independents Archives

Congratulations, America: You're officially unncessary

The nation’s biggest political-action committees have raised $66 million so far this year — all of it for Republican presidential candidates. That’s roughly nine-and-a-half times more than any one of those candidates has raised in public campaign financing.

The people behind Super PACs know how to influence elections (or “buy politicians” as it’s more accurately known), and how to legally avoid scrutiny.

At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, James Madison said, “The people are the fountain of all power.” Hop in the DeLorean and time-jump to today, and the power of the people has been utterly perverted. The job of supposedly leaders is to produce what the money-ballers and power-brokers who bought their office want. And we have the ludicrous “Citizens United” Supreme Court decision - wherein it was ruled that corporations have the exact same rights as individual U.S. citizens and cannot be limited on how much money they can give to a political candidate, *AND* they don’t have to disclose having done so.

A whopping $66 million was raised in the first half of this year by independent groups known as “super-PACs” (political-action committees), according to Federal Elections Commission filings. The justification for these money-funneling organizations is that PACs weren’t effective enough in buying politicians and super-versions of them were necessary. It’s the same exact mentality that decided that Congress wasn’t effective enough to pass laws, so we needed the “Super-Congress” to get things done. And we’ve all how non-partisan, streamlined and effective that’s been.

That $66 million is more Barack Obama and John McCain raised COMBINED over an entire two-year period prior to the 2008 election.

What does this mean to you, me and every other average taxpayer? It means that we are now *OFFICIALLY* irrelevant to the American electoral process, as opposed to the way we've just been peripherally involved for the past several decades. Big money corporations and super-PACs are literally able, legally, to BUY ELECTIONS. Candidates don't even have to bother with fundraising anymore. They just sit back and collect multi-million-dollar "donations" from people and organizations that are formed and run by their own people. They don't need your money anymore. They don't even need your vote anymore. All they need is one or two millionaire/billionaire buddies to buy the ballot box for them. You? You're just there for them to pander to you; to rile you up, spew their spiffy bumper-sticker slogans at; and fool you into thinking they actually give a rat's ass what happens to you.

Although there are currently more than 140 PACs involved, just five groups accounted for more than $50 million of that haul:

Winning Our Future: $27.4 million (directly supporting Newt Gingrich, including $10 million given by Gingrich's billionaire buddy, Las Vegas casino magnate Sheldon Adelson)
Restore Our Future: $15.2 million (directly supporting Mitt Romney)
American Crossroads: $3.9 million (founded and run by Karl Rove, directly supporting Newt Gingrich and anyone and anything that opposes Barack Obama)
Priorities USA Action: $3.1 million (directly supporting Barack Obama)
American Bridge 21st Century: $1.5 million (directly supporting Barack Obama)

Think about that: One man, one multi-billionaire, has given $10 Million dollars to Newt Gingrich's presidential campaign. $10 MILLION. And he's got four-or-five more zeroes than that if he feels like throwing another 10-or-20 million into the fire. Someone explain again how that's NOT buying a presidential campaign or the political figure-head in front of it? Never before in the history of American politics has a single couple given more money to a single candidate and had a bigger impact - all courtesy of the Supreme Court and its grotesque decisions that speech is money and corporations are people under the First Amendment.

We're supposed to believe that Adelson won't want something in return if Gingrich gets into the White House? We're supposed to believe that influence won't be pedaled to allow Adelson to build casinos in Florida and elsewhere that he's been prevented by law from doing for decades? We're supposed to believe he's just a "patriotic American who's participating in his Constitutionally protected electoral process" because he's a nice guy?

Bullshit. I'll believe Sarah Palin's IQ is bigger than her bra size first.

Super-PACs may raise unlimited funds from individuals, corporations, or unions to advocate for or against political candidates. They may also spend unlimited funds, though they may not "coordinate" with or contribute directly to a candidate's campaign. And isn't it amazing how often these candidates are seen having dinner with these donors, or playing golf with them, or at a party with them, etc.? But we're supposed to believe they're NOT talking about the campaign or their financing. Why? Because they tell us they weren't, and politicians would simply never lie, especially about something as grave and serious as campaign fraud.

The court in Citizens United rightly approved requirements for public disclosure of donors' names and other information. Unfortunately, political professionals have found a way around that by funneling money first through nonprofit corporations not subject to disclosure requirements. The Washington Post reported Tuesday that pro-Gingrich Winning Our Future, buoyed by $10 million in contributions from casino billionaire Sheldon Adelson and his family, had purchased $6 million in Sunshine State advertising. Restore Our Future was reported to have spent $7.7 million on behalf of Romney.

That's nearly FOURTEEN MILLION DOLLARS, spent in one state, in one week, for nothing more than repetitive, negative, "attack" ads that have been proven - time and again - to be stuffed full of out-of-context quotes, distortions, misrepresentations and outright lies - all in favor of two pathological liars who want you to believe they are the best possible choice there is to be leader of the United States of America, and by proxy, the leader of the free world.

Super-PACs can avoid disclosing donors by contributing funds raised to 501(c)4 organizations; these non-profit "social welfare" organizations are not required by law to reveal their donors. During the mid-term elections, five super PACs attributed all or nearly all of their contributions to nonprofit organizations.

The dual-structure affiliation of super PACs and non-profits is currently legal, but it's a blatant and obvious end-run around the voice of the voter, and a direct super-highway for corporations, big unions, and wealthy individuals to have unlimited influence on elections and officeholders. This was the reason "soft money" donations to the political parties were banned in 2002, and the ban was affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2010. But super-PACs don't *CALL* it "soft money," so the Supreme Court trumped itself, and royally screwed the ordinary voter, by saying that the "soft money" ruling didn't apply.

The Campaign Legal Center, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that works in the areas of campaign finance and elections, political communication, and government ethics, has filed a petition with the Internal Revenue Service, arguing that existing IRS regulations permit these 501(c)4 groups to make far more campaign expenditures than is allowed by the Internal Revenue Code, and requesting that the IRS issue new regulations that better enforce the law.

A collective of Republicans in the House of Representatives have already joined forces to issue a counter-proposal to block the petition on the grounds that it "violates the law of the land, as defined by Citizens United." You got that, didn't you? The politicians opposing the people who are opposing Citizens United, are citing Citizens United as the reason why it can't be opposed. And nobody in Washington sees an inherent, systemic problem with that? THESE are our "best and brightest"?

Unfortunately, because the system is designed to keep power in power, Congress will never reform itself when it comes to campaign finance. The rich will get richer, the powerful will get more powerful, and you and I will sit here, shaking our heads or screaming at the monitor, powerless, frustrated and prevented from doing anything about it by a system that's designed to protect, promote and promulgate itself.

Newt Gingrich can whine and cry that Mitt Romney is spending millions of super-PAC dollars on negative campaign ads that make Gingrich look bad (mainly by pointing out facts from his political past). So what is Newt's solution? His super-PAC spends millions of super-PAC dollars on negative campaign ads against Romney, and justifies it because "Hey ... the law says I can."

And don't look for the Federal Election Commission to weigh in on this. They've already released a statement that they are only responsible for how *elections* are conducted, not campaigns.

And that's why I'm suggesting an end-run around Congress.

By invoking Article V of the U.S. Constitution and putting enormous pressure to fix this dismal fiduciary game of ba-zinga called "politics in America" through voicing opposition - loud and organized - at state constitutional conventions, we the people can take the strangle-hold off our financial and electoral throats and force the U.S. Congress to surgically remove a cancer that has poisoned it from within.

It's either that, or torches and pitchforks.

And, frankly, I'm leaning *WAY* more toward the latter.

Posted by Gary St. Lawrence at January 29, 2012 12:14 PM
Comment #335283

Technically, the Super-PAC contributions go to campaigns, and not to candidates. Technically, the candidates have no control over the contributions. However, everyone knows there is no separation. Romney and Gingrich don’t even bother to pretend. Both know those Super-PACs are controlled by the candidate with a nod and a wink. Stephen
Colbert famously established his independence by handing control of his Super-PAC to Jon Stewart.

The Citizens United decision is a disaster for the country, without question. We’re seeing a battle of plutocrats.

Title V requires jumping through too many hoops. A far more practical and achievable method would make use of the Supreme Court. That only requires five justices. Several would already be willing to overturn that terrible decision.

Even that method will be difficult. The Republican Party is completely devoted to the interests of the One Percent. The Domocrats attempted to push a bill merely revealing the identities of Super-PAC donors. Republicans shot it down.

Whatever one may think about OWS, they got one thing right. The Republicans, with the help of a few Democrats, will use Citizens United to forward the interests of the One Percent at the direct expense of the 99%.

It’s only class warfare when you fight back.

Posted by: phx8 at January 29, 2012 12:43 PM
Comment #335286

“Soros’s latest hostile takeover target is the Democratic Party, and over the past eight years, Soros and a gang of fellow billionaires have come pretty close to achieving their goal.

Starting soon after George W. Bush’s inauguration as President in early 2001, Soros poured a reported $18 million into passage of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law (Soros has continued to be a major donor to McCain’s Reform Institute), which placed a cap on “soft money” donations to the political parties, but left open a loophole, allowing nominally independent groups, referred to as “527s,” to take unlimited donations. Soros began buying up the first generation of 527s, including outfits like MoveOn, ACT (America Coming Together), and Media Matters. Soros also played a pivotal role in the 2004 candidacy of Howard Dean, who bombed as a Presidential candidate, but was rewarded for his access to Soros loot with the chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee, after John Kerry’s loss to George Bush in November 2004.

From that perch, Howard Dean waged a ruthless campaign against candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton in the 2008 primary elections—in tandem with Soros’s Democracy Alliance, a secretive billionaires club, that pooled its money to take over and run a “vast leftwing conspiracy” of 527s, PACs, and think tanks, that has replaced any Democratic Party constituency organization.

In the meantime, Soros found his legion of honest Bush-haters, in groups like MoveOn and ACT, to be useful tools in his further grimy speculative binges. Following the Kerry defeat, MoveOn, the Center for American Progress, and other progressive groups on the Soros dole, targeted Vice President Dick Cheney and Halliburton, the giant oil and defense contractor that was profitting mightily off of Bush and Cheney’s Iraq imperial misadventure.

The barrage of attacks on Halliburton drove the company stock down, from a peak of $40 down to $26—at which point Soros began buying up Halliburton shares. Between the third quarter of 2005, and the fourth quarter of 2006, Soros bought 2 million shares of Halliburton, at an average price of just over $31.

As the media attacks on Halliburton—in part, driven by Soros’s anti-Bush/Cheney and anti-war zeal—died down by late 2006, Halliburton shares quickly rebounded. By early 2008, with Halliburton shares nearing $50, Soros had made an estimated $40 million in clear profit, making him one of the larger Bush-Cheney war profiteers.”

Posted by: Bill at January 29, 2012 2:47 PM
Comment #335287

“The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) of 2002, also known as “McCain-Feingold”, after its sponsors, is the most recent major federal law on campaign finance, which revised some of the legal limits on expenditures set in 1974, and prohibited unregulated contributions (commonly referred to as “soft money”) to national political parties. ‘Soft money’ also refers to funds spent by independent organizations that do not specifically advocate the election or defeat of candidates, and funds which are not contributed directly to candidate campaigns.

In early 2010, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited pursuant to the right of these entities to free speech.”

Posted by: Bill at January 29, 2012 2:58 PM
Comment #335288

In 2008 unions gave the Democrats $24 million in re-election donations and almost the same amount in 2010.

Posted by: Bill at January 29, 2012 3:04 PM
Comment #335289

Bill Thats the point lets get the money out of both sides.

Posted by: Jeff at January 29, 2012 3:08 PM
Comment #335292

Does it bother liberals that Obama has spent more time fund raising than he has presidenting over the past 3 years? Does it bother liberals that Obama has between $750 mil and $1 bil in his campaign war chest? Nah, I didn’t think so..

Posted by: Bill at January 29, 2012 3:17 PM
Comment #335293

Jeff, how would you propose to do this feat? Everytime politicians try to correct problems; they make them worse. McCain/Fiengold is a perfect example. By the time the courts got done with it….well you get the picture.

Obama is stealing America’s wealth in order to bailout unions, who in turn put more money into Obama’s coffers.

Posted by: Bill at January 29, 2012 3:21 PM
Comment #335294

You use Lyndon LaRouche as a reliable source for information on Soros funding Democrats? Really? Because it sounds like just so much loony conspiracy theory to me. But LaRouche couldn’t possible be a loon. That’s why people are out to get him. In his own words:

“Since late 1973, I have been repeatedly the target of serious assassination threats and my wife has been three times the target of attempted assassination…My enemies are the circles of McGeorge Bundy, Henry Kissinger, Soviet President Yuri Andropov, W. Averell Harriman, certain powerful bankers, and the Socialist and Nazi Internationals, as well as international drug traffickers, Colonel Gadaffi, Ayatollah Khomaini and the Malthusian lobby.”

Fortunately for Lyndon, Gadaffi is dead. But that won’t stop the others potential assassins, for he has been “threatened by Communists, Zionists, narcotics gangsters, the Rockefellers and international terrorists.”

Bill, if you want to make a political argument, please cite a source that is not a loon.

And where do you come up with that garbage about Obama doing more fundraising than “presidenting”? Can you cite anything to support this? Preferably a sane, non-partisan source?

Btw, in the last election, three of the top ten political donors were unions. The other seven were corporate or other versions of political donors. And it is the recipients of union money and, yes, even Soros money- mainly Democrats, and occasionally Republicans like McCain- that are calling for campaign finance reform.

Does Obama receive a lot of money? Yes. He also appointed liberal justice Sotomayor, who actually questioned corporate personhood from the bench.

In a recent State of the Union address, Obama criticized the Supreme Court justices to their face for the terrible effect Citizens United would have on the country. Conservatives were outraged by the criticism, just as they opposed Sotomayor, because they- and you, Bill- are unwitting tools.

Posted by: phx8 at January 29, 2012 3:32 PM
Comment #335296

Bill, do you think your partisan attitude will help solve the problem?

“In 2008 unions gave the Democrats $24 million in re-election donations and almost the same amount in 2010.”

You mention Obama’s huge re-election war chest and can’t see that union donations are chicken feed compared to the amounts being spent on politics and politicians? The money being poured into the election process by wealth and their entities dwarfs anything the unions can throw in.

I am all for keeping union money out of the election, are you prepared to do the same with the wealthy interference and are you prepared to act.

In the fourth quarter of 2011, corporations spent $104 million through K Street lobbyists to lobby politicians on behalf of legislation, in particular two bills, SOPA and PIPA.

Posted by: jlw at January 29, 2012 3:54 PM
Comment #335299

Spot on article, Gary. It’s like the ‘emperor has no clothes’ in that we are expected to believe that corporate influence on elections is minimal as the law forbids corporations from making direct donations to candidates. Likewise with the superpacs, in that the law states there can be no direct contact between the superpac and the candidate. Such laws have allowed the corpocracy to buy government at wholesale prices.

More important is this propaganda that money equates to free speech and that ‘one man, one vote’ has no place in the elective process. Both are fallacies designed to retain power within the corpocracy. The amplitude of free speech should be driven by the passion and concern of individuals, not by groups of individuals who can use their wealth to influence or warp the elective process.

In the beginning there were two entities; gov’t and the people. This worked well until1886 when a third entity, the corporation was added. This brought about the large imbalance in political power sharing we have today. People generally operate as individuals and die after a 100 years or so. Corporations generally have narrowly defined interest, exist to monopolize, merge, conglomerate, and live in perpetuity.

I appreciate the solutions put forth, especially relating to Article V Convention.

“”Article V of the U.S. Constitution: The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress; provided that no amendment which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.””

And, Gary, we all agree that congress will never reform itself re campaign finance reform. Likewise, Congress and the courts have refused to allow the people their right to Article V Convention irrespective that this right is spelled out in the Constitution. However, there is a strong movement by Friends of the Article Five Convention to bring AVC into the public square and convince congress and the courts to change their position.

Still, we should keep the issue of campaign finance reform before our state legislatures, thereby keeping pressure on congress and the courts to relent. If we are to return gov’t to the people and remove the money influence from politics/gov’t we must find a way to implement REAL campaign finance reform.

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at January 29, 2012 5:44 PM
Comment #335310

I will be the first and last to agree that the money influence in campaigns is a terrible wrong.

But here is a question. After all that money is collected and spent who are the people appointed to high level positions and what do they have in common?

The CFR has had more numbers of appointments to high level positions than any group for decades.

“The organization seeks to centralize both political power and market power to craft legislation outside the checks and balances of democracy.”

“Members of the CFR in the media intend to inject it’s pro-globalist arguments into the mainstream consciousness.
The goals of the CFR is best described by its very own members. Bill Clinton’s Georgetown mentor and CFR member Carroll Quigley states: “The Council on Foreign Relations is the American branch of a society which originated in England… (and) …believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one world rule established.”. Quigley
differs from many of his CFR colleagues in that he believes their plan for a new world order should be more publicly disclosed. In his book Tragedy and Hope, Quigley concedes he is unique among his peers in that he believes the new world order plan of global government’s “role in history is significant enough to be known”. Quigley also admits that the two-party system allows for both groups to be controlled at the highest level but operate like bitter rivals. As Quigley says, this gives the voters the chance to “throw the rascals out at any election without leading to any profound of extreme shifts in policy.”. Controlling Washington elite allowed private central banks to “dominate the political system… …and economy of world as a whole” and implement a new system of “feudalist fashion” through “secret agreements”. Although he believes the CFR’s intentions should be more public, Quigley understands the average person doesn’t understand feudalism or serfdom and will never read his book.”

Many of its own members admit the CFR goal is to subvert the democratic process. CFR member and Judge Advocate General of the US Navy Admiral Chester Ward writes “The main purpose of the (CFR) is promoting the disarmament of US sovereignty and national dependence and submergence into and all powerful, one world government.”.
This high ranking military officer went on to explain their
procedures for influencing policy, claiming: “Once the ruling members of the CFR shadow government have decided that the US government should adopt a particular policy, the very substantial research facilities of the CFR are put to work to develop arguments, intellectual and emotional, to support the new policy and to confound and discredit, intellectually and politically, any opposition.”

The above quotes come from CFR sources.

If you want to read a book that will blow your socks off read Quigley’s “Tradegy and Hope”. Over 1300 pages of eye popping revelation.

Another bit of reading.

Antony Sutton’s trilogy. 1700 pages of great reading that will change some people minds.

Western Technology & Soviet Economic Development
Vol. 1 covers 1917-1930
Vol. 2 covers 1930-1945
Vol. 3 covers 1945-1965

A condensed version of the trilogy is called:

“National Suicide: Military Aid to the Soviet Union”

All of this reading will show that there is no difference between those rhetorical bouts on policy and claims between both major parties. They both agree. They only choose a different avenue to the same goal.


Posted by: tom humes at January 29, 2012 8:45 PM
Comment #335314

“I’ll believe Sarah Palin’s IQ is bigger than her bra size first.”

You are mixing apples and melons. lol

Posted by: tom humes at January 29, 2012 9:04 PM
Comment #335318

You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t force it to take it’s head out of its ass to take a drink.

Some people around here won’t even go to the trough.

Posted by: Gary St. Lawrence at January 29, 2012 10:42 PM
Comment #335319

… Lyndon LaRouche ….?


What’s next, Bill? Are you going to show us clips from Hannity and Beck with them saying how much of a genius LaRouche is?

The man is a world-class lunatic, racist and xenophobic isolationist, and his own words prove it.

“Judaism is not a true religion, but only a half-religion, a curious appendage and sub-species of Christianity.” It evolved as an “ideological abstraction” of the “Roman merchant-usurer who had not evolved to the state of Papal enlightenment, a half-Christian, who had not developed a Christian conscience….A self-subsisting Judaism never existed and never could exist.”—Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr., “The Case of Ludwig Feuerbach,” The Campaigner, Dec. 1973, p. 37.

“Can we imagine anything more viciously sadistic than the Black Ghetto mother?” — Internal memo, “The Politics of Male Impotence,” - Lyndon H. LaRouche, New York: NCLC 1973.

Posted by: Gary St. Lawrence at January 29, 2012 10:58 PM
Comment #335320

According to a study conducted at Brock University, Ontario:

“Low-intelligence adults tend to gravitate toward socially conservative ideologies”

Posted by: jlw at January 29, 2012 11:34 PM
Comment #335321

The crazies are getting more and more agitated.

Tonight, one posted a comment after my article that had nothing whatsoever to do with the topic, and finished by calling Obama a “Pro-Muslim, anti-American traitor.” In this column, a conservative quotes LaRouche. In the right hand column, another wants to spread an e-mail hoax about health care statistics and the Obama administration’s lack of business experience.

People like Limbaugh & Beck & Hannity have been encouraging these crazies for the past several years, and the effect has been terrible. Conservative are full of self-righteous indignation, with little in the way of reality to back up their anger.

Sure, it’s an election season, and passions run high. But this is going beyond passion and into a rage focused upon the left in general, and Obama in particular. Crazy stuff about Obama being a Pro-Muslim, un-American traitor, wild conspiracy theories about Soros, fictitious statistics about healthcare from the “United Nations International Health Organization” (there’s no such thing) to be passed on to other conservatives… I guess it just worries me where this is all going. The conservative rage and anger seems completely unhinged and untethered, free from any kind of reality check. On a national basis, it can’t possibly end well.

Posted by: phx8 at January 29, 2012 11:50 PM
Comment #335324

i read the whole content that is really confusing….

Posted by: gold rate in pakistan at January 30, 2012 5:10 AM
Comment #335331
I guess it just worries me where this is all going. The conservative rage and anger seems completely unhinged and untethered, free from any kind of reality check. On a national basis, it can’t possibly end well.

Hatred is quite the motivator for those that cling to conservative ideologies phx8. Newt is calling Romney the “L” word (which I find insulting to liberals everywhere) as desperation sets in. But this is just minor stuff compared to the TRC’s on XM Patriot radio. I have been listening to these guys as I have been driving through the heartland this past couple of weeks and it seems hatred is the order of the campaign season for the uberconservatives.

To answer your question however I would suggest Germany, the ‘30’s and otherwise decent people being driven by hatred as a ending for this type of rage.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 30, 2012 11:35 AM
Comment #335333

> > I have often wondered why it is that Conservatives are called the
> > “right”
> > and Liberals are called the “left.” ’
> >
> > By chance I stumbled upon this verse in the Bible:
> >
> >
> > “The heart of the wise inclines to the right,
> > but the heart of the fool to the left.”
> > Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NIV)
> >
> > Thus sayeth the Lord. Amen.
> >
> > Can’t get any simpler than that.
> >
> > Spelling Lesson
> >
> > The last four letters in American……….I Can
> > The last four letters in Republican…….I Can
> > The last four letters in Democrats………Rats
> >
> > End of lesson. Test to follow in November, 2012
> >
> > Remember, November is to be set aside as rodent extermination month.

Posted by: Bill at January 30, 2012 1:49 PM
Comment #335334

“To answer your question however I would suggest Germany, the ‘30’s and otherwise decent people being driven by hatred as a ending for this type of rage.”

Posted by: j2t2 at January 30, 2012 11:35 AM

Perhaps one of you guys on the left could provide a link that shows police using tear gas and riot gear against a Tea Party gathering. The only one I have seen that has resorted to violence is the OWS protestors; throwing bricks at the police. I don’t think you want a street confrontation with conservatives; since Obama has taken office, firearms and ammunition sales has increased 500%. It takes an idiot to bring a brick to a gun fight.

Posted by: Bill at January 30, 2012 1:57 PM
Comment #335335

You might be curious to know that the latest Rasmussen poll-from a polling organization notorious for leaning Republican- shows Obama with a 51% approval rating, and beating Romney 47 -41 percent, and Gingrich by a 17% spread.

Those kind of numbers don’t just spell a win. They indicate a landslide. It will take 25 seats for the Democrats to retake the House, and if those polling numbers are any indication, that will be very doable. The Senate will be tougher simply because the math overwhelmingly favors the GOP, but in a landslide the Democrats may hold a majority.

Of course, it’s early. By all means, keep whistling past the graveyard.

Posted by: phx8 at January 30, 2012 2:00 PM
Comment #335337

“By all means, keep whistling past the graveyard.”

Took your advice and while whistling I read the markers.
Among some of the names were:


It was dark and I could not read very many as I was going by the graveyard and not in it.


Posted by: tom humes at January 30, 2012 2:22 PM
Comment #335338

By the way, if you support Gingrich or Romney, you might want to drop the Bible quotes. Not appropriate with those guys on the ticket. Just sayin’.

Posted by: phx8 at January 30, 2012 2:23 PM
Comment #335339

phx8, are we now using Rasmussen polls? I just want to know, because the left has always rejected Rasmussen. If we are using Rasmussen today, can we also use it next week? We could look at the Rasmussen polls from a month ago and show the exact opposite. Want to do that???

It’s 10 months until the general election; Republicans are beating up on each other (do you remember Hillary Clinton saying Obama didn’t have the experience to be president?). You do remember the democrat primary that lasted until June, don’t you; when Obama and Clinton beat up on each other. We’ll see what happens when the Republican candidate, whoever he is, starts running ads showing the lying SOB Obama, and what he promised and what he really did.

Posted by: Bill at January 30, 2012 2:33 PM
Comment #335342

Any way you cut the pie between Obama, Salamander, and Matty, you get a loser. A liar, a socialist and a liberal. What a choice.

Posted by: tom humes at January 30, 2012 2:53 PM
Comment #335346
Perhaps one of you guys on the left could provide a link that shows police using tear gas and riot gear against a Tea Party gathering.

Perhaps if the Tea Party had more than a few hours or a one day gathering we could compare the OWS and the Tea Party circumstances Bill. As it is being in a public place for weeks and months and the problems it presents just isn’t the same as a day march,IMHO. Apples and Oranges.

It does make one wonder if the analogy to the tea bags and the German people who went peacefully to day marches and parades is worth more thought though Bill.

I don’t think you want a street confrontation with conservatives; since Obama has taken office, firearms and ammunition sales has increased 500%. It takes an idiot to bring a brick to a gun fight.

Displaying that Tea Party nationalism for all to see Bill? Threatening the use of force by conservatives armed with firearms against protestors armed with bricks, sounds more and more like Germany in the ‘30’s to me. The hatred, for these youngsters protesting, seething from your comments is a powerful statement Bill, powerful and condemning. Just the opposite of liberty and justice, more like fascism and authoritarian thought IMHO.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 30, 2012 3:18 PM
Comment #335347


“…since Obama has taken office, firearms and ammunition sales has increased 500%.”

So much for that assault on the 2nd Amendment.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at January 30, 2012 3:31 PM
Comment #335386

Sans the debate, it was a good article, Gary.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at January 30, 2012 7:30 PM
Comment #335387

The Nazi’s spent years demonizing their enemies, especially the Jews, and fabricating atrocities against the German people before setting lose their brown shirts on the public in earnest.

Today, the type has been giving warnings that they will not be employing bricks and clubs the next time they are let loose.

The Nazi’s were determined to prevail, if not by the ballot then by other means. From the Nazi perspective, the survival of Germany depended on their ascension to power, and that extremism, even genocide, in defence of Germany was warranted. This theme, in various altered states that conform to the particulars of a situation, has been a popular defensive justification for those who would resort to extremism to see their beliefs prevail.

Posted by: jlw at January 30, 2012 7:50 PM
Comment #335398
Sans the debate, it was a good article, Gary.

Yes it was, and it seems another voice calling for an Article V convention. Who would convene such a convention?

Posted by: j2t2 at January 30, 2012 9:50 PM
Comment #335404

J2t2, an easy question to answer but, the path to AVC could be difficult. Difficult, but certainly possible. How could it be that over 400 Article V applications to state legislatures from 49 states are on record. Applications from 2/3rds, 34 states are required by the Constitution to convene. Congress must respond as Article V of the Constitution states it is ‘peremptory’ as in sit down, shut up and take notes, etc.

Friends of the Article V Convention is at the forefront of the effort to move congress and the courts off the dime on this issue. I’m sure several here at WB are members and encourage all readers to review the FOAVC website. Convention USA is an action organization headed by the Hon. Judge Thomas Brennan, former Chief Justice of Michigan. I am a Captain for Virginia delegates. If you register soon you will be eligible to vote in the National Presidential Primary to be held on Feb 20, 2012. Note that Buddy Roemer is on the slate of Presidential candidates there. This candidate has never taken a Pac or Super-pac dollar and he has a considerable background as Senator and Governor.

The fact that congress and the courts continue to deny this Constitutional right is incomprehensible to me. IMO, people should lay down their rakes and hoes, leave the field, find a laptop and logon to FOAVC and ConventionUSA .

AVC is a pathway provided to us by the Founders to right the ship when gov’t wil not/cannot. Through AVC we can implement REAL campaign finance reform, gain a balanced budget amendment, abolish corporate personhood, etc. If we continue to fail to act on this issue the Corpocracy continues to win and we continue to LOSE.

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve… . .

Posted by: Roy Ellis at January 30, 2012 11:22 PM
Comment #335406
Bill wrote: “…since Obama has taken office, firearms and ammunition sales has increased 500%.”

How can that be possible, Bill? I mean … with Obama the Socialist taking all your guns away, and all …

Pick a schism and stick with it, will you, please?

Posted by: Gary St. Lawrence at January 30, 2012 11:40 PM
Comment #335407
Bill wrote: “I don’t think you want a street confrontation with conservatives; since Obama has taken office, firearms and ammunition sales has increased 500%. It takes an idiot to bring a brick to a gun fight.”

Liberals own guns, too, chickenhawk.

And since “liberals are all loons,” you probably want to think twice about antagonizing them, Dr. Hawking.

Is this the part where you threaten to come to my house and beat me up, Bill?

Posted by: Gary St. Lawrence at January 30, 2012 11:50 PM
Comment #335421

Roy your links don’t seem to work.

Buddy Roemer made the most sense of the candidates when he was running for the repub nomination. I realize the bar is set pretty low but I would certainly consider voting for him if the political party is actually fielding candidates for at least the Congress as well.

Posted by: j2t2 at January 31, 2012 11:21 AM
Comment #335452

And, with these new self-guided bullets, they don’t even have to practice.

Posted by: jlw at January 31, 2012 7:27 PM
Comment #335464

Thanks, j2t2.

Sites referenced:

Roemer considered running as an Independent but at present is sticking with the Republican Party. He can be tracked and supported through Americans Elect, Has said he will work with both sides of the aisle. Americans Elect has over 2M members who plan to vote in a National Presidential Primary in Feb, I believe.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at January 31, 2012 10:00 PM
Comment #335512

We are upfront and personal witness to the purchase of the ‘best gov’t money can buy’. With the advent of the super-pacs we are drowning in ‘free speech’.

The Corpocracy suggests more free speech is the way to equalize political power between the people and corporations. So, the new limit for an individual is $2500, up a $100 from last election. Still, I’m not sure how we can ‘out shout’ the Corpocracy as they can give unlimited dollars to place ads for or against a candidate. And, it’s obvious from SC/FL that the negative stuff seems to work better.

I can’t see a level playing field coming from any rules/reform brought to bear by the Corpocracy. One can see where Article V Convention would give the people sufficient free speech to put something in the Constitution to remove the money influence from politics/gov’t. But, people must first come together in a large voting bloc to overcome the Corpocracy’s opposition.

Not likely as people have gone from being the silent majority to the braindead majority, IMO.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at February 1, 2012 9:05 PM
Comment #336525

Hey, guys

Interesting debate. Especially considering that Lyndon la Rouch is still the craziest loon to run for president in all the years I’ve been voting. I thought he’d died long ago. Maybe he has and he’s been resurrected.

Jeez, why are you guys still responding to someone like Bill? Haven’t you learned NOT to play with children down the street? They’re playing with matches. Someone’s going to get burned… and it won’t necessarily be them. They’re just crazy enough to actually try to trick you into believing their nonsense.

Bill, you managed to bring up all the horrors I thought I managed to bury in the past!

Build a colony on Mars, by the end of the 1990’s, my foot! Such ideas, and loony things I thought I’d forgotten and left behind from my childhood days! OHHHH Lyndon!

Now, as for the Super pacts… I wish there were some way to control them. They certainly seem to have provided a way for moneyed ‘people’ to influence the common voter.

The only good thing about them is they are driving decent people berserk with the constant TV ads, phone calls, junk snail mail and email, and door knockers. Berserk enough to turn voters against the candidate they are supporting. Such happened in SC when Newt managed (Jeez) to beat Romney. And who knows, maybe that’s why (heaven help us) Santorum won the three states he did…

KAP - never, ever, say never!^^^

I seriously doubt Newt would have won if Romney hadn’t driven everyone crazy with his Super-pact supporters.

In other words, I honestly believe each candidate can and should control what their supporters are saying about them. it is after all the candidate’s creditability or lack of it that is being sold.

Posted by: Highlandangel1 at February 12, 2012 9:45 PM
Post a comment