A Conversation for How the U.S. Congress betrayed its people

US is not a Democracy

Post 1

TheEditorJ

As interesting as this article was, perhaps the author ought to do a little more research on what form of government the United States currently has before making the assertion that it is slipping into socialism. We are not a democracy. Any child who can say the Pledge of Allegiance will tell you this ("And to the REPUBLIC for which it stands..."). If we were a democracy, the people could vote for themselves as to whether or not they wanted this bill to be passed. A democracy is ruled by the masses.

The person who wrote this article should also look into the source where he quoted Benjamin Franklin. The actual quote was "A Republic, if you can keep it."


US is not a Democracy

Post 2

Moatas; Muse of American Ways

If you know what Democracy is and if you know what a republic is then you should know what socialism is and KNOW that the United States is well on its way.
We have people who have spent their entire career in 'public service' as elected officials. Some believe these people can't handle or are not qualified for a real job, sorta like editors, and is another form of welfare. Granted, that most of the elected are lawyers and their parents have our sympathies. The Permently-Elected have no sense of service to the people (which their power arrives from), except to bring in the 'pork-barrel' and get re-elected. They DO have a good sense of how to turn a $150,000 a year job into much more.
The people who are 'corrupted' by money are already corrupt and should be expelled as soon as this is known. This 'campaign reform' bill will not stop corruption. It will only allow more of the Corrupted to stay in public office, the last place they belong.
We also have 'regulations' which are not voted on, not discussed in public forum. They appear in a book, as if written by the hand of God, or some other deity. Without warning or reparations, private land has been seized and 'declaried' a 'wetland' or a breeding area for a bird, animal or bug who's presences either hasn't been scientificly established or lives in many other places, sometimes in a 'K - Mart' signs. And the owners are left with nothing. They can't sell the land, who would buy it? And they can't use the land.
This is not the way of a 'Republic' or a 'Democracy'. No, it is much closer to Socialism, and the sooner the American people realize this, the sooner we can restore the country's freedom. It was America's freedom the brought people from around the world to her shores. America's exordinary freedom that allows her ordinary citizens to acomplish exordinary things.


US is not a Democracy

Post 3

Tonsil Revenge (PG)

Bookmark.


US is not a Democracy

Post 4

cashlessness

I can't follow your argument that clamping down on donations to political parties and campaigns will benefit the people who are already in office. Surely, as they are the ones in a position to dispense favours to their backers, they benefit most from the existing free-for-all. Its non-incumbents who should benefit from taking some of the money out of the contest, especially independents who haven't a hope at the moment.

I've not heard the argument before that reducing the opportunities for vested interests to fund established politicians somehow robs ordinary citizens of power. Surely it does exactly the opposite?

I know there's a big tradition in the US of loathing every new law that comes out, but this one looks to me like it takes some money power back from the political class.


Abridging the Second Ammendment

Post 5

Moatas; Muse of American Ways

PLEASE NOTE: As soon as this 'law' went to the President, every congressman was checking for loop-holes. But what you may not know is that; 1) There are plenty of campaign laws, just no one has enforced them. (see US people vs. Clinton/Red China) Much like current gun control laws of this country. Both have the distintion of not being enforced and having more laws piled on to them any way. Most didn't believe President Bush would sign it into law. If he hadn't, they could say, 'See, Bush is for corruption/big business/etc.' At the moment, the 'money' side of this law will benefit Bush and any other incumbent. The amounts allowed to be donated are higher, But as I said, there are loop-holes in the law.
2)The media side of this law. Each canidate may say anything they want to, as before. However, when the 60 day mark before an election arrives, no one or no group can have printed, televised or any other form of media, their thoughts of the canidates or issues, pro or con, known. This is the freedom of speech that has been abridged. (see U.S. Constitution; First Ammendment: Freedom of Speech) Many voters do not start paying attention to political races until maybe the last 40 days. Sad, but true.
This will only leave canidate's ads and, you'll love this, the MEDIA.
Yes, Tom, Peter, Dan and their associates will be telling you what is what with the canidates. This is the reason the media did not report on this aspect of the law. It will give The Media incredible power in persuading voter's view. If the Media acted as they should, their opinions or political leanings would not affect their reporting.
C'mon, they let so much of what Clinton did,(was convicted of multiple perjury) and what he may have done (rape, selling state secrets, murder(s,)fraud, etc.) go pass without a comment. If George H.W. Bush had even a hint of scandal, the press was on him like a dirty diaper.
It is not certain when or if the Supreme Court will over turn this 'campaign reform law', as 'Unconstitutional'. Until that time, we all have lost more of our freedom. Add this to 'regulations', added to everyday that takes more freedom from us, taken by unseen, faceless, unaccountable people. The Freedom men, women, sons and daughters have willing died for. The freedom that brought people from all around the world, seeking the freedom to make a life, free from fear of an overbearing government. The freedom that allows ordinary people to do extraodinary things. The freedom that made America the envy of many, older countries.
Wouldn't it be easier if we let the canidates collect as much cash from anybody and have their donor lists made public? It would have made the Clinton administration's actions more understandable.


Abridging the Second Ammendment

Post 6

Tonsil Revenge (PG)

(raises hand)
Um, I have a question.
Have you forgotten the internet?
Does the new bill say anything about that?


Abridging the Second Ammendment

Post 7

cashlessness

'fraid I still don't entirely understand what the law dictates: I presume people & organisations are still free to express their opinions right up to election day, just not to buy advertising space pushing a political message in newspapers and on TV. I don't see how that can be a bad thing. Advertising is no way to carry on a political debate anyway: it only ever deals with issues in the crudest, most cartoon-like fashion. If you want a democracy that treats citizens like adults and tries to win votes by argument rather than by playing on fears, personalities and misunderstandings, keep money and advertising out of it as much as possible.

Making donations transparent isn't enough - who pays attention to details like that when only half the country votes anyway. (Although you can see a lot of that info on www.commoncause.org/laundromat )



Abridging the Second Ammendment

Post 8

Moatas; Muse of American Ways

Well....if you really believe all that, then you haven't studied American politics. And have no frelling idea what I've been writing about. To us, the voters, the canidate's personality IS important, so of course, his/her opponent will try to portrait it as a bad one. And up until the first Clinton election, Character was important, but the major Media here ignored this quality he lacked, not once but up to and beyond today. The fact the Media will be the only voice, outside of the canidate's, is so undesirible. Imagine if you were the only radio, TV and newspaper on your side of the country. Go on, imagine....we'll wait. Here's another, suppose you were seeking an elected office and your opponent (the incumbent) said (after the 60 day limit had been reached) you had a total lack of proper morals and provided names, places and lewd acts. And the Media prints, broadcasts this without asking you about it first, and really doesn't care if its true or not. (this might get you elected in the US if the Media likes you) The 'facts' he/she shared were twisted from the truth. What would you do? Start your own rumours? Now suppose there is a group that likes you, has the real facts that could possible save you campaign, but...nope, they can't do, its the law. Oh, golly...your better funded incumbent opponent Media darling just beat the snot out of you at the ballot box.
The truth of your 'affair' or whatever is made know afterward, but its not frontpage news and it might get 3 seconds of air time from the networks, if that. All that is remembered about you is you had an affair and shouldn't be elected dog-catcher.


Abridging the Second Ammendment

Post 9

Moatas; Muse of American Ways

Any questions?...ah, yes, you in the back with your hand up, Tonsil...That's very good question,.....any other good questions before we move on? Great.
To answer your question, Tonsil, I don't know. Given the facts I have, I would have to say the Internet is probably out, too. But don't quote me on it. In fact I was never here and have three people who will say I was with them when this was written.


Abridging the Second Ammendment

Post 10

Tonsil Revenge (PG)

That fits in with my favorite little conspiracy theory, that you are an outside agitator sent by the government to distract us with this issue while something wholly other and more nefarious is going on in the background.

And something is. Bush has neutered the Freedom Of Information Act with regard to presidential and vice-presidential papers. Thus covering his butt and his daddy's butt. He's actually covering his own butt twice, because he was very active in his father's White House.
It remains to be seen if this is a very savvy move or a big mistake.
But the press and a whole pile of professional lawsuit-mongers are up in arms about it.

They claim that the Freedom Of Information Act was designed to open up the government to public scrutiny. I claim that it was designed to let the government know what people were truly interested in so the government could learn to cover it's tracks better. Either that, or the whole thing was a plot by the photocopier manufacturers guild and the black marker guild to increase their business a hundred fold over night. The scissors distributors ain't doing too badly, either.

Any man whose character is too weak to withstand being impugned by a political campaign doesn't deserve to be in politics. Any man who has lived a life so pure that he has nothing to fear from a political campaign is too good to be in politics and would surely be sullied by any exposure to public office. What does that leave us with?
Prima donnas and saints. What do we have in office? Gamblers who won.

I say, cut to the chase and do all elections like a talent contest.
Singing, dancing, telling jokes and looking good in a swimwuit.
No more grey men in black suits, trying to be serious and stand still without squirming. Like boys at a Bar Mitzvah.


Abridging the Second Ammendment

Post 11

cashlessness

Are you really saying that people will get a truer picture of candidates from their advertising than they do from the media? If you're worried that the media is such a powerful force, break up the big media corporations and ensure diversity.

If you've an axe to grind against Clinton., I would have thought you'd be in favour of reducing the emphasis on presentation and personality. It's because he was such a smoothie that he did so well.

It's not really all that difficult to esure a level playing field between candidates, at least so far as TV is concerned. A little regulation seems to work well in the UK (rights to reply, references made to all other candidates when one is mentioned, no paid-for TV advertising). Here, though not fantastic, turnout at elections and the standard of political debate and coverage are all higher than in the US.

But I guess that's namby-pamby law-hungry European talk.


Abridging the Second Ammendment

Post 12

Moatas; Muse of American Ways

You're right, that is namby-pamby and Tonsil is correct also. I'm here to make sure you don't notice the giant Space Ark being built in the Saudi desert.(its mostly tempered glass so we're using the sand)
Now about Europe...naw, it would be too easy and I might start an international incident, and then would the space ark be.
Clinton has the same carisma Hitler was reported to have and Bill uses it pretty much the same way. I will refer you to the Kennedy-Nixon debate, the first television presidental debate in history. Kennedy's people research appearance on the tube, a light blue shirt, make-up, etc. Nixon's people didn't research it, so he wore a white shirt, which made him too bright on the black and white screens of the day, excepted no make up and was recovering from the flu. The election was still close with Chicago bring in the votes needed. Chicago's motto is 'Vote early, Vote often'
Here's a detail maybe you didn't hear, this Law will not go into effect until after this year's election. If its so good, why not start it right away?
I like going to 'Newsmax.com.' and 'the Drudge report' I recommend them both.
And Tonsil... always watch the skies.
Ciao


Abridging the Second Ammendment

Post 13

Tonsil Revenge (PG)

JFK's father is supposed to have called him election night,"I'm sorry , my'boy, you are on your own, now. I've bought every vote that I could."

While Dukakis bit it because no one could tell him how silly he looked in that tank (ol'Willie What's his name didn't help, either, that early release fellow who killed someone else), Clinton basically won because there was really no one else of the seven dwarves who could run against Bush. I was tired of Bush senior because I saw him as Reagan, part II. I voted for Clinton the first time. Not the second.
McGovern lost against Nixon for the same reason Dewey bit it and Stevenson, also. They thought intelligence and good speech writing would do the trick. Carter won because Nixon blew it for the Republicans.
Goldwater is supposed to have lost to Johnson because of that stupid daisy/mushroom cloud ad. But my study of the '64 campaign shows that Goldwater was surprised about the nomination in the first place and he never expected to make it past the primaries. The other candidates were no-shows.
No, in the national arena, I don't think ads or media make much difference, with the possible exceptions of Eagleton and Hart, but I try not to think about them too much. It is the state level ads for the campaigns that allowed many of these bozos to enter politiics in the first place that bug me.
As for Nixon in 1960, he had some of his old Eisenhower cronies messing with his campaign and they were clueless. Besides, he was a buffoon. Reagan wanted to run, but they wouldn't let him. So he went on to become California's Governor...

I think the internet will help determine the next president.
I think the next candidates will be a bit more computer savvy.


Abridging the Second Ammendment

Post 14

Moatas; Muse of American Ways

Ok, who's been hacking into my diary?!

Tonsil, you may not believe this, but I agree with almost everything you wrote. I believe Clinton did not think he'd get past the primaries either. As for Bush the elder, his campaign committee was so screwed up, I could have beaten him. I do not know what your political leanings are. I do know that Bush the elder's campaign managers had a chart of all the different types of voters, with the conservatives at the bottom. That and going back on his 'Read my lips' thing.
Bob Dole campaign was so bad, it hurt just to watch. Again, I could have beaten Bob compared to the Clinton campaign.
I do wonder, there was alot of crap that came up about old Bill the first time he was elected. And you know, it seems, that alot of that stuff had more than a hint, a sliver, a whiff, a touch of crediblity to them. So how bad does a canidate have to be (or seem to be) before you, as the campaign worker, quit? "Primary Colors' is more than just a suggestion of the Clinton campaign. Was it a case of 'the lesser of two evils'? Was it the Clinton's charm? or a campaign team that decided that nothing was going to stop them from getting 'their guy' elected, be damn with his lack of character? I'd love to get those guys under the influence of a truth serum and ask them.
So keep up the good work, and I'll save you a place on the Space Ark.


Key: Complain about this post