4463 replies to this topic

[Mr. Roboto]

White House's Axelrod Says Secret Political Donations Threaten Democracy

White House senior adviser David Axelrod said secret donations to outside political groups are“a threat to our democracy,” singling out the U.S. Chamber ofCommerce for criticism less than a month before elections thatwill determine control of Congress.

“If the Chamber opens up its books,” Axelrod said onCBS’s “Face the Nation” program, “then we’ll know. All wehave now is their assertion” that foreign money isn’t used foradvertising in U.S. elections.

Tom Donahue, president of the largest U.S. business group,said last week the Chamber is starting a new political campaignagainst rules on health care, finance, the environment andlabor. The Chamber has said it will spend $75 million backingpro-business candidates in the Nov. 2 elections and has ledgrowing business criticism of President Barack Obama in recentmonths.

Republicans need a net gain of 39 seats to gain a majorityin the 435-member House of Representatives. The non-partisanCook Political Report in Washington forecasts Republicans willwin at least 40 seats after the Nov. 2 election. In the Senate,where Republicans hold 41 of 100 seats, the Cook report saysthey are poised to pick up from seven to nine seats.

Obama criticized Republican-leaning groups at a campaignrally for Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley in Bowie, Maryland,on Oct. 7, saying their advertising is funded by contributorswhose identity isn’t known.

“Just this week, we learned that one of the largest groupspaying for these ads regularly takes in money from foreigncorporations,” Obama said. “So groups that receive foreignmoney are spending huge sums to influence American elections,and they won’t tell you where the money for their ads comesfrom.”


http://www.bloomberg...-democracy.html




***


Thoughts?

[freedom78]

As is often the case, I'm most bothered by the hypocrisy of all of this. Obviously, we don't want foreign entities (people, states, corporations, etc.) influencing our elections, any more than we should influence theirs. But given the way the right has attacked Obama as foreign, even going so far to claim that he isn't a legit President, and given the attacks on immigrants and anyone who falls out of the white, protestant, heterosexual, native born category...well, the fact that those same people are willing to use foreign money to support an agenda in this election is incredible hypocrisy. Of course, it's hardly unexpected from this crowd.

[artcinco]

It seems kind of weak if that is the line of attack they have chosen. Is that what will convince the 2008 Obama voter to get out to the polls, that the GOP is running a bunch of ads and they won't say where the money is coming from? And that the money may be coming from foreigners? It actually reminds me of the 2004 election when Democrats were trying to make Bush's vacations an issue. Obama has accomplished a fair amount of his agenda in the past two years. But those items must not be polling well with the electorate since not very many Democrats are touting these legislative accomplishments in their campaigns.

[freedom78]

It seems kind of weak if that is the line of attack they have chosen. Is that what will convince the 2008 Obama voter to get out to the polls, that the GOP is running a bunch of ads and they won't say where the money is coming from? And that the money may be coming from foreigners?

It actually reminds me of the 2004 election when Democrats were trying to make Bush's vacations an issue.

Obama has accomplished a fair amount of his agenda in the past two years. But those items must not be polling well with the electorate since not very many Democrats are touting these legislative accomplishments in their campaigns.

We have laws that prohibit foreign entities from donating to our political candidates...so why should they be allowed to pay for issue ads? If such ads were being run in support of Democrats, all the talk would be about how Obama is a secret fucking Muslim.

[Mr. Roboto]

Obama has accomplished a fair amount of his agenda in the past two years. But those items must not be polling well with the electorate since not very many Democrats are touting these legislative accomplishments in their campaigns.

Why is this? Are the Dems to blame for not selling their accomplishments to the base? The Republicans for repeating "His policies are failures" non stop? Or the people for simply not looking past the end of their nose? Personally the latter has me perplexed, how anybody look at the last two years and sincerely think Obama hasn't done anything?

[freedom78]

Every time I see, for example, Tim Kaine on TV talking up the Dems he certainly isn't running from their policies, but championing them. A few Dems who are vulnerable might be running away, but it's hardly the norm from what I"ve seen.

[artcinco]

The New York Times says:

The Democrats have offered no evidence that the chamber is usingforeign money to influence the elections.

So it looks like just pre-election mud slinging on Obama's part. He is just asking his opponents to open their books and show everyone where their money comes from. With that not happening he can suggest perhaps the money is coming from foreigners or oil companies. My original comment was that this is a weak line of attack, not that the issue of foreign contributions does not have merit. Most voters would have this issue fairly low on the list of things they are concerned about.

As for who is to blame for voters not showing more enthusiasm for the legislative accomplishments of the past two years, I think part of it was the "sausage-making" the way the healthcare legislation was passed. One of my senators was called a prostitute for her "Louisiana Purchase" vote. But ultimately there is some head-scratching as to why the Democrats have not been able to toot their own horn better, at least to their base and the independent voters.

[TAP]

The US Chamber of Commerce runs attack ads and receives foreign money - it hasn't denied (in fact it has admitted) both of those things. It does however, in it's own words, have a system for keeping the foreign money away from the attacks ads, speaking of which I have a bridge for sale....

[artcinco]

Only if it is the Brooklyn one.

I still think it is an odd attack stategery. Was that the best thing they had to use against the GOP at this point?

[TAP]

Only if it is the Brooklyn one.

I still think it is an odd attack stategery. Was that the best thing they had to use against the GOP at this point?

The whole election is weird. It hasn't really been about what Obama has done on either side. The GOP is running on undoing what Obama has done without being very specific about it, somehow hoping no one will remember things weren't so great when Obama got elected.
On a related note, can someone name a major name GOP politician who you think has talent or integrity or good ideas outside of Ron Paul who isn't really a republican anyway.

[TAP]

Not entirely relevant to the elections, but to some of the things mentioned in this thread and others....
http://www.guardian....e-self-interest

[artcinco]

I have heard some decent things about the governor of New Jersey as far as GOP politicians go. You are right next door, what is your opinion of him? Good article. It illustrates our binary nature and by extension our binary political parties. The individual vs. the collective as universal themes at every level. I like the author's point about trying to appeal on the other sides turf by emulation. It ultimately doesn't work. Why have the imitation? It would be better if each party would argue their true points and beliefs and let the chips fall where they will. If the GOP wants social Darwinism by market dictates with minimal government then promote that. If the Democrats want government that offers "womb to the tomb" coverage and programs for everyone that offer everything instead of individual choices then promote that. But most people want some of each and hence the eternal battle. How much is too much of each point of view? It varies form person to person. I always wonder if a third party that dropped the religious stuff from the GOP (the telling people how to live part) and dropped the nanny state stuff from the Democrats (the telling people how to live part) and took the best of what was left and promoted true individual freedom tempered with responsibility to others would it be successful? I also grow tired of the whole "voting against their interests" trope. It seems counter intuitive. People vote theri best interests how they see things. A third party observer disagreeing with them seems a bit presumptuous.

[TAP]

Monbiot is a clever guy, though a big proponent of global warming (the theory not the effects obviously) just FYI. Anyway 1. I don't think the GOP or Dems will ever be as you describe, even if they were honest. The Dems are center right to me, for more social equality but not womb to the tomb as you put it, at least from my Euro-Pinko perspective. The GOP seems more about isolating wealth than free market in its current incarnation. 2. Most people want some of each, they also want more of both than other people generally - that's a by-product of evolution. 3. I don't think a third party will ever hold that much power here without a really radical power shift. There's too much money invested in the system, and the two party system is (according to some neuroscience research) quite natural. People tend to be either dystopian (things can only get worse - conservative) or utopian (things can only get better - liberal), and the middle ground is probably dependent on personal circumstances. Steven Pinker writes good, readable but not easy, books about such things. 4. In Britain, they always use the phrase 'feel good factor' around elections, and being happy is perhaps even more important than wealth or health, and in your 'best interests' Happiness is sometimes caused by people being worse off that you......

[TAP]

oh yeah, don't know much about the NJ gov other than him killing the commuter train project

[freedom78]

Good article. It illustrates our binary nature and by extension our binary political parties. The individual vs. the collective as universal themes at every level. I like the author's point about trying to appeal on the other sides turf by emulation. It ultimately doesn't work. Why have the imitation? It would be better if each party would argue their true points and beliefs and let the chips fall where they will. If the GOP wants social Darwinism by market dictates with minimal government then promote that. If the Democrats want government that offers "womb to the tomb" coverage and programs for everyone that offer everything instead of individual choices then promote that.

The article was interesting, and seems to back up something I've always believed which is that it's not about ideas...it's about marketing. The GOP have done wonders by marketing themselves as tough, which fits very well into our American image. So they talk responsibility and self-reliance, which raise to mind the cowboy imagery so ingrained in us. We all like the idea of our independence. Dems/liberals really need to work on that. As much as they mocked Bush's "Dead or Alive" stuff, they must have missed how well it worked with many people. They need to make responsibility not about the individual's responsibility to him/herself, or the state's responsibility to all people, but about the individual's responsibility to those who are weaker in some way. After all, that same independent cowboy wouldn't be so beloved if he simply rode away while the village was beset by bandits, murders, and savages (erm...movie speak, not my opinion of Native Americans). Let's face it...if you work the line at a factory you're probably a tough guy. The GOP has a monopoly on tough guy politics, and marketing counts.

Think of it this way: Applebee's has the worst fucking good known to man, yet good little mom n' pop places go out of business while that shithole sets up shop in every town in the country. It's certainly not because their food is better. It's because they can afford to market themselves and do so endlessly. Their commercials focus on things people like: local values, saving money, and fun. Now, you can't possibly tell me that Applebee's better supports local values than a diner with no corporate franchise, or that the value is any different than anywhere else, but they sell it and people buy it. This, then, demonstrates why we'll likely die out as a species in the next 15 or so years.

I always wonder if a third party that dropped the religious stuff from the GOP (the telling people how to live part) and dropped the nanny state stuff from the Democrats (the telling people how to live part) and took the best of what was left and promoted true individual freedom tempered with responsibility to others would it be successful?

Sounds like the libertarian party...how've they done lately?

Truthfully, I think that would go over well with most people. While I have my liberal tendencies, there are many aspects of government that I'd be ok getting rid of or relegating to the states. And of course the morality codes nonsense that the GOP seems enamored with lately, which is often bigoted and likely unconstitutional, should go the way of the dodo.

But, in reality, the two major parties have such a grip on power that it'll be hard to oust either one without something major. Hell, Bush lied us into a war that became incredibly unpopular and cost us thousands of lives and here we are about to re-elect Republican majorities. The two parties combined control our election system. Note that the FEC isn't non-partisan...it's BI-partisan. It goes without saying that no third parties are represented. How can they possibly compete when the two major parties control all the strings of power and set up enormous obstacles to third party competition?

Further, our single-member district voting system leads to two party outcomes (this is called Duverger's Law). Think about how we describe third party voters. They "waste" their vote. After all, since they're not going to win anyway, why vote for a third party? Instead, most independent voters, who do NOT consider themselves Dem or Rep will still vote for one of those parties, despite the fact that there is almost certainly another party out there that better matches their values and beliefs. Do you recall how vilified Nader/Green Party voters were after the 2000 election, given that the difference between Bush and Gore in Florida was smaller than those who voted for Nader and presumably had more in common with Gore than with Bush? Is it any wonder that third parties don't succeed? I wouldn't have wanted to have had a Nader sign in my yard that year.

I also grow tired of the whole "voting against their interests" trope. It seems counter intuitive. People vote theri best interests how they see things. A third party observer disagreeing with them seems a bit presumptuous.

I agree that we each define our interests (as would a person who strongly believes in rational choice decision making) according the value we internally apply to those things. I think what most mean when they say "against their own interests" is economic interests.