Page 1 of 1 pages
Oh you are so right, Flavia. And even more worse is that the Republicans came out with their ethics reform plan the day before the Dems and then the press beat them up because it appeared to only mirror what the R’s proposed. Ugh!
Posted by robertg on Feb 22, 2006 at 11:18 AM
<i>“By not addressing the role of campaign contributions in their ethics reform plan, the Democrats lead voters to one of two conclusions: Democrats are benefiting from the same system and want it to stay in place, or Democrats are oblivious to the system
Posted by luminous beauty on Feb 22, 2006 at 3:01 PM
It’s pretty far-fetched to suggest that anyone who has set foot within the Beltway is truly “oblivious to the system’s current flaws.” One would have to be raised in a cave to have avoided knowing about this controversy and the scandals associated with it.
It’s much more plausible to suggest that too many Dems AND Reps have benefited from the system’s weaknesses for them to really want it changed. Had there been enough motivation in previous Congresses for stricter ethics guidelines to control big money’s effects on politics, the changes would have been made by now. As it is, there’s been plenty of opportunity, plenty of motive.
Posted by Kuya on Feb 22, 2006 at 8:29 PM
I’ve had enough of the two major parties, we need a Flavia Colgan Party. Where do we sign up?
Posted by littleblacker on Feb 23, 2006 at 11:55 AM
Yes, the Flavia Colgan Party is definitely a good idea. From what I can see of Colgan’s public persona and writings, this party would be highly ethical, multi-ethnic, politically astute, spiritual (Colgan majored in Religion at Harvard), and, above all, FUNNY. Where is the wit in the contemporary political scene? “...the ethics reform proposed by the Democrats is a peashooter aimed at the edges of the 800-ton blob eating Washington,” says Flavia. Damn right! What I wonder is—why can’t anybody else seem to see that? Have things really gotten that ossified? Is our country really being run by the political equivalent of middle managers, folks who are too concerned about “looking good” to do good? There’s a deeper cultural critique being suggested by Colgan. THIS IS NOT ISSUE SPECIFIC! Sure, Flavia’s a “Liberal,” with all that implies, but there’s something else—Flavia’s article on the Dem analogies to Abramoff definitely indicts the Clintonesque mode that only Jimmy Carter, Barack Obama, Robert Byrd, and a few others seem able to rock in the Democratic Yacht. Cuz it’s a yacht, it ain’t a boat. I hereby nominate Flavia Colgan as the next Democratic (senator, head of the DNC, or President). Whatever it takes.
This political culture keeps America down, ensures continued massive poverty, that lacks vision, and favors corruption. Syriana may have invoked Bush-league politics for naive silly “Liberals,” but the truth hurts—the shoe fits both parties, as the brilliant recent documentary “Why We Fight” showed all too clearly—it showed how both Dems and Repukes were involved in the Cold War Corruption of politics and business and bribery, etc. (not just Dick Cheney).
Posted by annewilde on Feb 23, 2006 at 12:07 PM
First, you should know, I think restricting private campaign financing is probably unconstitutional, but I’ll set that aside for the purposes of this comment.
The thing you should consider is that Dave Obey is completely hypocritical on this issue. He takes 2/3rds of his campaign contributions from DC PACs and DC lobbyists. Moreover, one of his Republican opponents asked Obey to voluntarily limit spending by both sides to $500,000 in his race, and Obey refused. The Republican still has to run in a primary. Obey has a $1.3 million Congressional budget to help his cause. Obey already has $900,000 in his campaign account and his opponent will have to work hard to raise $500,000. Yet, Obey still REFUSED. To me, he has no credibility on this issue.
If Obey is not willing to put his money where his mouth is, both he and his bill should be discounted as disingenious. Apparently, all he is trying to do is score political points.
Posted by onwisconsin on Feb 24, 2006 at 10:44 AM
onwisconsin,
Isn’t it a little disengenious of you to ask Obey to unilaterally disarm?
For information on how public financing can pass constitutioal muster,
CLICK HERE.
Posted by luminous beauty on Feb 24, 2006 at 11:07 AM
Forget about Newton and physics for a moment and ask yourselves one simple question before you criticize Ms. Colgan:
How many times do you crank the car before you check under the hood?
Something is wrong with the system folks and it shouldn’t take a physicist, or a mechanic, to tell you this, so lets check the dipstick and see the PAC numbers that are lubricating our “system” for the 2005-2006 cycle:
Defense Industry - $3,546,735
Energy/Natural Resources - $7,731,020
Finance & Insurance - $20,204,519
Healthcare - $14,047,942
as compared to -
Public Employees (Fed Govt Employees, Military active/retired, police, firefighters, social workers) - $118,550
City/County(intercity and rural bus transportation, water/irrigation) $71,771
Notice the difference in “fluid” levels? Obey, Frank, and Tierney do and they are attempting to clean it up. Ms Colgan is giving them credit for finally getting out of the car of checking under the hood. At least someones doing something.
Posted by Joseph Duran on Feb 25, 2006 at 8:32 PM
I haven’t even read the article yet, but I will. One thing for sure—-the whole campaign/media process is racketeering and fraud. “Reform” is much too pleasant a term, we should throw the book at them.
Later I’ll read the article and recommended links, and read the posts more thoroughly, but while I’m taking a break from house work I want to throw out a couple of party ideas that I think are worth mentioning. Sometimes when striving for change, we work to change what is most glaringly wrong, and let stand traditions that are insidious and damaging in their own ways.
If campaigns were made completely public, we could afford to form not only a host of other parties, but temporary parties, as well. This may sound odd, but I think it would be an excellent exercise for citizens. First of all, we could do away with party membership as it stands so that a citizen and a statesman can be a member of however many parties they please. Second of all, we could form parties with an expiration date or to be expired when a goal is achieved. A party could be formed to address a specific issue, and when that issue is resolved satisfactorily, it could dissolve. If, after a time limit, the issue is not resolved, the party can regroup and decide whether to renew their charter and continue with the old plan, or work with a new approach.
This way, loyalty to parties will not be an issue. Identification with parties will be less of an issue, parties will not go to great lengths to continue their existence after they become unnecessary and/or ineffective, and people who may disagree with each other on most issues, can work together on something they DO agree on.
Posted by wileywitch on Feb 27, 2006 at 2:23 PM
luminous beauty,
how exactly is it unilateral disarmanent to limit spending on both sides? Obey refused to do just that.
what obey is is hypocritical.
Posted by onwisconsin on Apr 26, 2006 at 3:41 PM
Page 1 of 1 pages
SAVE 53% OFFTHE NEWSSTAND PRICE!
Reader Comments
Oh you are so right, Flavia. And even more worse is that the Republicans came out with their ethics reform plan the day before the Dems and then the press beat them up because it appeared to only mirror what the R’s proposed. Ugh!
<i>“By not addressing the role of campaign contributions in their ethics reform plan, the Democrats lead voters to one of two conclusions: Democrats are benefiting from the same system and want it to stay in place, or Democrats are oblivious to the system
It’s pretty far-fetched to suggest that anyone who has set foot within the Beltway is truly “oblivious to the system’s current flaws.” One would have to be raised in a cave to have avoided knowing about this controversy and the scandals associated with it.
It’s much more plausible to suggest that too many Dems AND Reps have benefited from the system’s weaknesses for them to really want it changed. Had there been enough motivation in previous Congresses for stricter ethics guidelines to control big money’s effects on politics, the changes would have been made by now. As it is, there’s been plenty of opportunity, plenty of motive.
I’ve had enough of the two major parties, we need a Flavia Colgan Party. Where do we sign up?
Yes, the Flavia Colgan Party is definitely a good idea. From what I can see of Colgan’s public persona and writings, this party would be highly ethical, multi-ethnic, politically astute, spiritual (Colgan majored in Religion at Harvard), and, above all, FUNNY. Where is the wit in the contemporary political scene? “...the ethics reform proposed by the Democrats is a peashooter aimed at the edges of the 800-ton blob eating Washington,” says Flavia. Damn right! What I wonder is—why can’t anybody else seem to see that? Have things really gotten that ossified? Is our country really being run by the political equivalent of middle managers, folks who are too concerned about “looking good” to do good? There’s a deeper cultural critique being suggested by Colgan. THIS IS NOT ISSUE SPECIFIC! Sure, Flavia’s a “Liberal,” with all that implies, but there’s something else—Flavia’s article on the Dem analogies to Abramoff definitely indicts the Clintonesque mode that only Jimmy Carter, Barack Obama, Robert Byrd, and a few others seem able to rock in the Democratic Yacht. Cuz it’s a yacht, it ain’t a boat. I hereby nominate Flavia Colgan as the next Democratic (senator, head of the DNC, or President). Whatever it takes.
This political culture keeps America down, ensures continued massive poverty, that lacks vision, and favors corruption. Syriana may have invoked Bush-league politics for naive silly “Liberals,” but the truth hurts—the shoe fits both parties, as the brilliant recent documentary “Why We Fight” showed all too clearly—it showed how both Dems and Repukes were involved in the Cold War Corruption of politics and business and bribery, etc. (not just Dick Cheney).
First, you should know, I think restricting private campaign financing is probably unconstitutional, but I’ll set that aside for the purposes of this comment.
The thing you should consider is that Dave Obey is completely hypocritical on this issue. He takes 2/3rds of his campaign contributions from DC PACs and DC lobbyists. Moreover, one of his Republican opponents asked Obey to voluntarily limit spending by both sides to $500,000 in his race, and Obey refused. The Republican still has to run in a primary. Obey has a $1.3 million Congressional budget to help his cause. Obey already has $900,000 in his campaign account and his opponent will have to work hard to raise $500,000. Yet, Obey still REFUSED. To me, he has no credibility on this issue.
If Obey is not willing to put his money where his mouth is, both he and his bill should be discounted as disingenious. Apparently, all he is trying to do is score political points.
onwisconsin,
Isn’t it a little disengenious of you to ask Obey to unilaterally disarm?
For information on how public financing can pass constitutioal muster,
CLICK HERE.
Forget about Newton and physics for a moment and ask yourselves one simple question before you criticize Ms. Colgan:
How many times do you crank the car before you check under the hood?
Something is wrong with the system folks and it shouldn’t take a physicist, or a mechanic, to tell you this, so lets check the dipstick and see the PAC numbers that are lubricating our “system” for the 2005-2006 cycle:
Defense Industry - $3,546,735
Energy/Natural Resources - $7,731,020
Finance & Insurance - $20,204,519
Healthcare - $14,047,942
as compared to -
Public Employees (Fed Govt Employees, Military active/retired, police, firefighters, social workers) - $118,550
City/County(intercity and rural bus transportation, water/irrigation) $71,771
Notice the difference in “fluid” levels? Obey, Frank, and Tierney do and they are attempting to clean it up. Ms Colgan is giving them credit for finally getting out of the car of checking under the hood. At least someones doing something.
I haven’t even read the article yet, but I will. One thing for sure—-the whole campaign/media process is racketeering and fraud. “Reform” is much too pleasant a term, we should throw the book at them.
Later I’ll read the article and recommended links, and read the posts more thoroughly, but while I’m taking a break from house work I want to throw out a couple of party ideas that I think are worth mentioning. Sometimes when striving for change, we work to change what is most glaringly wrong, and let stand traditions that are insidious and damaging in their own ways.
If campaigns were made completely public, we could afford to form not only a host of other parties, but temporary parties, as well. This may sound odd, but I think it would be an excellent exercise for citizens. First of all, we could do away with party membership as it stands so that a citizen and a statesman can be a member of however many parties they please. Second of all, we could form parties with an expiration date or to be expired when a goal is achieved. A party could be formed to address a specific issue, and when that issue is resolved satisfactorily, it could dissolve. If, after a time limit, the issue is not resolved, the party can regroup and decide whether to renew their charter and continue with the old plan, or work with a new approach.
This way, loyalty to parties will not be an issue. Identification with parties will be less of an issue, parties will not go to great lengths to continue their existence after they become unnecessary and/or ineffective, and people who may disagree with each other on most issues, can work together on something they DO agree on.
luminous beauty,
how exactly is it unilateral disarmanent to limit spending on both sides? Obey refused to do just that.
what obey is is hypocritical.
register a new account »Posting Security