Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

What does Sharron Angle believe about campaign finance?

With the Senate voting today on the DISCLOSE act, it's time to drill down and figure out what Sharron Angle believes about campaign finance regulations.

As best as I can determine, Angle has made no public statements directly about the DISCLOSE act, which would place a host of new restrictions on the power of corporate money to influence our elections, and force people who fund elections to reveal their roles.

But she appears to oppose it. In a Tweet earlier today, Angle approvingly directed her followers to this article about the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's attack on Harry Reid over the legislation.

In the article, Chamber president Tom Donohue blasted the DISCLOSE act as an "assault to the First Amendment" and a "complete outrage," which are views Angle presumably supports.

Indeed, asked for comment on Angle's views, Angle spokesman Jerry Stacy emailed me this:

Sharron Angle supports the First Amendment, and I find it astonishing that Harry Reid's priority in Washington is to attack our First Amendment at a time when his home state of Nevada leads the nation in unemployment, home foreclosures, and bankruptcies.

That appears to signal opposition to DISCLOSE. What's more, Angle proudly trumpeted on her old Web site endorsement of the group Citizens United, the group behind the Supreme Court decision that led to the DISCLOSE act.

Meanwhile, the Reid campaign points out that it also said this on Angle's old Web site:

"Sharron Angle believes that campaign finance limitations must come from the candidates themselves."

Though Angle supports some kind of disclosure of contributions, the above appears to signal opposition to any kind of Federal limitations on donations, or at least that all limitations must be self-imposed by the candidates. That, of course, would square with her opposition to DISCLOSE.

By Greg Sargent  |  July 27, 2010; 3:56 PM ET
Categories:  2010 elections , Senate Dems , Senate Republicans  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Now a Blue Dog Democrat gets caught talking chickens for checkups!
Next: Happy Hour Roundup

Comments

@Greg

In Angle's old campaign website, she touted an endorsement by Citizens United. I'd say that's a pretty clear indication that she'd be against the DISCLOSE Act.

Posted by: TheBBQChickenMadness | July 27, 2010 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Agreed, BBQ, noted above. :)

Posted by: Greg Sargent | July 27, 2010 4:04 PM | Report abuse

What, no analysis of Alvin Greene's views?

Posted by: sbj3 | July 27, 2010 4:10 PM | Report abuse

Only in the US Senate does a 57% majority mean that you don't have enough votes to be a majority.

Posted by: benintn | July 27, 2010 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Here are some excerpts from eyewitness accounts and summaries of foreign nationals voting in federal elections

In California, as an example former Republican Rep. Robert K. Dornan was defeated by Democrat Loretta Sanchez by 984 votes in the 1996 election. State officials found that at least 300 votes were cast illegally by non-citizens. Honolulu Advertiser, September 9, 2000. Election officials found 543 Oahu residents who were not U.S. citizens had registered to vote.

In 1996, Congress sanctioned the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, creating it as a federal crime for non-citizens who vote in any federal election (or state election, unless authorized by state law). As a penalty, ineligible non-citizens who knowingly vote may be deported. In addition, a non-citizen who falsely claims to be a United States citizen is in violation of this law. In 1997, the FBI and the U.S. Attorney’s office in Dallas were investigating voting by illegal nationals. They forwarded a computerized tape of the names of individuals who had voted to the INS (Immigration & Naturalization Service became ICE) requesting a check against INS records, but the INS refused to cooperate with the criminal investigation. An INS official was quoted as saying that the INS agency did not “want to open a Pandora’s Box…. If word got out that this is an extensive problem, it could tie up all sorts of manpower. There might be a few thousand [illegal voters] in Dallas, for example, but there could be tens of thousands in places like New York, Chicago or Miami.”

Eight of the World trade Center 11 murderers were registered to vote in either Virginia or Florida—registrations that were probably attained when they applied for driver’s licenses.

We cannot afford to let our guard down and those who are doubtful of these statistic as a fallacy, should type into Goggle, Yahoo "Voter Fraud?" We have already heard of intimidation by the Black Panthers, should be aware that in most states the so called "HONOR SYSTEM" prevails. We must eye incumbent elections, that a few hundred votes could put a bad politician back in office, such as Sen. Harry Reid. A few hundred illegal votes could make a world of difference in a close race. Your vote is important to Washington’s Senate and Congressman, so bombard them that you are adamantly against any type of Amnesty. You want them to secure the border and do it now, because Mexico’s blood bath could easily erupt here. Call the Washington switchboard at 202-224-3121.

Learn more at NumbersUSA No copyright, Copy, paste and distribute freely.

Posted by: infinity555 | July 27, 2010 4:12 PM | Report abuse

Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader in the close knit pack of Democrats, considers he is getting bad polling numbers, owing to the ingress of new residents that don't know him or his reputation? Fortunately he's right, but there is more to it? A great bulk of the new arrivals over the last five years are illegal aliens, taking construction jobs in the once thriving building boom. Now with the economic downturn, the building industry has faded out, after the greedy grasping of cheap labor by construction owners. Now out of a job illegal immigrants unable to find work, are stifling the welfare offices and that is one of the causes the state of Nevada is hurting economically. The illegal alien invasion has not gone away and now has infiltrated more than ever, in the casinos and entertainment-service industry as a whole. While Americans and legal residents remain jobless, illegal immigrants have transferred to those positions at lower wages.

In any midterm elections or November, we must be careful to watch for abnormalities in Nevada, but across the wide spectrum of polling places in this country. Only a few states have strict regulations on federal voting rules and absentee ballots little or none. Absentee voting is especially opened to fraud, and incumbent politicians with their careers on the line have much to lose. If a person (s) has criminally penetrated America, without being processed, it is my belief that many illegal entrants will break the law further by voting for pro-amnesty spearhead like Sen. Reid? Citizenship is and should be a basic constraint for voting. Citizenship is a legal requirement to vote in federal and state elections, except for a small number of local elections in a few jurisdictions. Non-citizen voting is likely growing at the same rate as our illegal alien population in this nation; but as for the deficiencies in state law and the miscarriage of federal agencies to obey with federal law, there are almost no measures in place that allow election officials to detect, dissuade, and avert non-citizens from registering and voting.


Instead, polling officials are chiefly dependent on an “honor system” that presumes aliens to follow the law. There are plentiful cases showing the failure of this honor system.

Posted by: infinity555 | July 27, 2010 4:13 PM | Report abuse

@sbj3 - first, let's talk about Jim Demint's views.

Posted by: benintn | July 27, 2010 4:14 PM | Report abuse

No Republicans voted for it today so why would she? What a dumb question. It would be a cold day in hell before she would vote for that garbage.

Posted by: Truthteller12 | July 27, 2010 4:15 PM | Report abuse

2/3 vote is required for many actions and motions in all kinds of deliberative assemblies.

Posted by: Truthteller12 | July 27, 2010 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Isn't the Tea Party supposed to be officially opposed to Citizens United decision?

Posted by: SDJeff | July 27, 2010 4:34 PM | Report abuse

@infinity555 - please troll elsewhere. I will mention one thing - just because 543 Oahu residents try to register to vote doesn't mean that they voted. It means that it was discovered that non-citizens had attempted to register to vote. And in the process, I'm sure those non-citizens were told what everyone else knows: "You cannot vote unless you're a citizen."

Now shoo.

Posted by: benintn | July 27, 2010 4:38 PM | Report abuse

@benintn: "Only in the US Senate does a 57% majority mean that you don't have enough votes to be a majority"

I'm pretty sure that the US Senate is not the only body with supermajority requirements for some cases. In fact, we've always required a 2/3rd majority for constitutional amendments, for example. California requires supermajorities for lots of stuff, and it hasn't apparently helped them much.

Democrats either need to work very hard to change the rules of the senate, which they almost certainly can, or to quit complaining, and use the filibuster similarly next time they are in the minority. Which will happen.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | July 27, 2010 4:42 PM | Report abuse

O/T but too funny:

"Sen. John Kerry Announces He
Will Pay Mass. Tax on Yacht"

Posted by: sbj3 | July 27, 2010 4:44 PM | Report abuse

@truthteller - it's 60 votes, not 2/3. Please check the facts and live up to your name.

Posted by: benintn | July 27, 2010 4:45 PM | Report abuse

@SDJeffL: "Isn't the Tea Party supposed to be officially opposed to Citizens United decision?"

There is no monolithic Tea Party--it's sort of like a big club that anybody who doesn't like Democrats, RINOS, or incumbents, or whoever--can join. But many Tea Party folks spoke out against Citizens United. There are a lot of folks in the Tea Party movement who are more classical Kansas populist than Alabama conservative. And Citizen's United is not exactly a decision designed to appeal to traditional populists.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | July 27, 2010 4:45 PM | Report abuse

"Isn't the Tea Party supposed to be officially opposed to Citizens United decision?"

Who in their right mind wouldn't be?

The whole idea of the First Amendment was protection of freedom from the government and powerful interests.

Exxon, for example, IS a powerful interest. They spend more money than any of us will ever see to shape laws that govern each of our lives. The benefit they receive for favorable lawmaking is not that they participated in government to "do the right thing," it is purely profit.

The thought that the richest corporations in the world need protecting is so laughable as to be ludicrous.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | July 27, 2010 4:46 PM | Report abuse

Alvin Greene vs. Jim Demint . . . it's no contest. I like Jim Demint's politics generally, but any candidate who wants to put people to work making action figures of himself . . . that person has to get my vote.

Alvin Greene, 2010!

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | July 27, 2010 4:47 PM | Report abuse

Can someone tell me how "attacking the First Amendment" has anything to do with unemployment, foreclosures, etc?

Posted by: ChuckinDenton | July 27, 2010 4:47 PM | Report abuse

@Ethan: I thought tea partiers weren't in their right minds, by defintion?

That being said, I must not be in my right mind (I had no idea), as I'm not generally opposed to Citizens United, though I am in disagreement with my favorite jurist (a rare event), Clarence Thomas, who went on to say there should be no obligation for disclosure. I think it's very important that who funds what political campaign be out in the open. For example, I'd be all for the Wal-Mart candidate, but very hesitant about supporting the Google or Starbucks candidate. The rest of the court disagreed with Thomas on that point, as well.

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | July 27, 2010 4:50 PM | Report abuse

Evan Bayh:

Previously, foreign-owned subsidiaries were required to finance these ads through political action committees constrained by $5,000 individual contribution limits and detailed disclosure requirements. Now, they can spend directly from their corporate treasuries with little oversight or disclosure.

This radical change gives foreign-owned corporations far more influence, while giving U.S. voters far less information about who is trying to sway them.

To put this in perspective, consider that the foreign-owned Royal Dutch Shell earned profit of more than $26 billion in 2008, yet, its U.S. subsidiary’s PAC spent only $142,000 in the 2008 election cycle. Freed from constraints, Shell could now overwhelm even the most well-funded candidate by spending a trivial percentage of its overall profit.

[...]

Worse, the company could mask its involvement by secretly donating funds to a trade association with an innocuous name like “Americans for Good Government.” The shadow group could then launch brutal attack ads without ever mentioning the foreign oil company or energy policy — masking the company’s involvement and true agenda.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0710/40273.html

Seriously. What kind of fool do you have to be, to be such an ardent supporter of the idea of First Amendment Rights that you give First Amendment Rights to FOREIGN CORPORATIONS?!?! I mean. The sheer lunacy of the right is on full display. It boggles the mind.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | July 27, 2010 4:53 PM | Report abuse

benintn, you wouldn't know parliamentary procedure if it bit you in the rear end. I'm well aware that the cloture vote today required 3/5. I was simply pointing out the fact that your statement above regarding the Senate is false.

Posted by: Truthteller12 | July 27, 2010 4:55 PM | Report abuse

Chuck, that statement from Angle is just her version of word salad, ala Palin.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | July 27, 2010 4:57 PM | Report abuse

The DNC needs to start running ads today showing the "Nay" votes in the roll call.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | July 27, 2010 5:00 PM | Report abuse

it must be a slow news day. Or Mr Sargent is assuaging his grief about the failure to assault our first amendment rights by posting pap on his blog.

I agree with the poster who asked Mr Sargent to provide a precis of the views of Alvin Green on campaign finance.

but Mr Sargent isn't here to provide even handed news. He's an opinion guy. You know like fox has news guys and opinion guys. That sort of thing. You know what I'm talking about, right liberals?

and Ethan you are simply wrong about the first amendment. Here's the text, since it appears you've forgotten it:
" Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. "

See anything in there about "powerful interests" Ethan?

I didn't think so.

And benintn, how nice of you to arrogate unto yourself the right to act as thread cop. Did you get a badge with that? Gonna write tickets if people don't behave the way you want?

Posted by: skipsailing28 | July 27, 2010 5:00 PM | Report abuse

Kevin_Willis, I agree re: disclosure.

Think about it.

First Amendment Rights...

...to FOREIGN CORPORATIONS.

To name a few:

Cinopec (China's oil company)
Citgo (Venezuela/Chavez)
Aramco (Saudi Arabia)
NOIC (Iran)

Wouldn't it be SO AWESOME to have all of our enemies flood the t.v. airwaves with ads, except with NO disclosure?

That's what the Republicans just voted for.

Unlimited political spending for any corporation with no accountability.

And they call themselves AMERICANS?!?!?!

How could they?

Sounds like they're aiding and abetting the enemy if you ask me.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | July 27, 2010 5:01 PM | Report abuse

The final vote was 57-41. Who missed the vote beside Lieberman? Did Reid not vote?

Posted by: suekzoo1 | July 27, 2010 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Oh and benintn, one more nail in your coffin: it is apparent now that Al Franken was ultimately elected by convicted felons who cannot legally vote in the state.

But what do you care as long as they vote Democrat, right?

Hugh Hewitt wrote a book entitled: If its not close, they can't cheat. And by "they" he meant "Democrats".

I wonder how many felons will have to vote to keep Chollie Rangel in office?
I wonder when Mr Sargent will make a blog post about Rangel's views on campaign finance?

Posted by: skipsailing28 | July 27, 2010 5:05 PM | Report abuse

"Sounds like they're aiding and abetting the enemy if you ask me."

Ethan, I really don't favor that kind of rhetoric, but it's a fair point. Obviously what they really want is for corporate interests to donate to republicans with no limits, and if a few foreign corporations do the same, that's the price we pay. This has nothing to do with freedom and everything to do with politicians maintaining power.

Kudos to democrats for opposing Citizens United. Considering many of them do receive huge checks from corporations, they're obviously on the correct side of this issue.

Posted by: SDJeff | July 27, 2010 5:07 PM | Report abuse

skippy: "it is apparent now"

It's apparent now that you are passed due on your afternoon anti-hallucination meds.

Why did the Republican governor of MN sign off on felons voting?

Posted by: suekzoo1 | July 27, 2010 5:13 PM | Report abuse

The fact that the left is squeeling so loud is an indication that free speech is being promoted from the right.. The left are facists and cant allow free speech... if the truth came out about their facist agenda, they might lose in November... Obama is clearly a socialist... and the left cant deny that.. They have to hide it.. The truth is out... America does not want socialism and the polls support the right.. Socialism/Fascism from the left will fail and the union brownshirts will be put down like the dogs they are... See you in November liberals!

Posted by: 2010Rout | July 27, 2010 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Yeah! Stop being such FACISTS!

What is a facist anyway?

I keep hearing that Republicans think Dems are facist.

What is that, government of, by, and for the face?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | July 27, 2010 5:17 PM | Report abuse

Come on now, Ethan, you know darn well that goverment by the face is Faceist...LOL

Facist must be government by the facts...pronounced "facs"... ya know? :o)

Posted by: suekzoo1 | July 27, 2010 5:21 PM | Report abuse

skippy is infesting all of Greg's boards today.

Posted by: koolkat_1960 | July 27, 2010 5:22 PM | Report abuse

"Facist must be government by the facts...pronounced "facs"... ya know? :o)"

HA!

Govt by the facts... That explains why the Right hates it so much.

Thank you Sue, you made my day.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | July 27, 2010 5:24 PM | Report abuse

Ethan2010, here is "what fascism is"

Please tell me why Obama is not a fascist!


Fascism is a religion of the state. It assumes the organic unity of the body politic and longs for a national leader attuned to the will of the people. It is totalitarian in that it views everything as political and holds that any action by the state is justified to achieve the common good. It takes responsibility for all aspects of life, including our health and well-being, and seeks to impose uniformity of thought and action, whether by force or through regulation and social pressure. Everything, including the economy and religion, must be aligned with its objectives. Any rival identity is part of the ‘problem’ and therefore defined as the enemy.

Posted by: 2010Rout | July 27, 2010 5:26 PM | Report abuse

"skippy is infesting all of Greg's boards today."

Skippy is not a facist.

He may be a faceist.

Or a fascist.

But certainly not a facist.

Whatever he is, he is certainly a "whiney baby."

Posted by: Ethan2010 | July 27, 2010 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Only fools think that the misnamed DISCLOSE Act promotes disclosure - unions and all kinds of Democrat-friendly organizations are exempt - and the NRA was against it before it was for it (with an exemption) before it was against it. What crapola - DISCLOSE my backside - a complete and typical Democrat fraud.

Just like the fraud story that Harry Reid is helping gain American jobs. He gave 300,000 American jobs to illegal workers: www.therealharryreid.org

Posted by: ejr2 | July 27, 2010 5:28 PM | Report abuse

Greg,

Got about a hundred things going on. Haven't been able to comment much. But excellent DISCLOSE coverage.

I was looking for a breakdown on this, and sure enough, you had it covered.

Posted by: michael_conrad | July 27, 2010 5:31 PM | Report abuse

"Please tell me why Obama is not a fascist!"

I'll tell you why Obama is not a fascist. Because if he were, he'd have rounded up all you teahadists and wingnuts on day one and sent you to the FEMA internment camps.

LOL

Posted by: suekzoo1 | July 27, 2010 5:31 PM | Report abuse

"Please tell me why Obama is not a fascist!"

Because fascists, like you, don't want free and fair elections. He does.

Btw, why are you a fascist? Stop being a fascist, fascist.

Frickin idiot.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | July 27, 2010 5:32 PM | Report abuse

"Only fools think that the misnamed DISCLOSE Act promotes disclosure - unions and all kinds of Democrat-friendly organizations are exempt -"

Hint one...unions are covered. Hint two....go read the bill.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | July 27, 2010 5:35 PM | Report abuse

@Ethan2010: You do understand that foreign contributions to American political campaigns are restricted by existing law, and Citizens United doesn't change that?

Posted by: Kevin_Willis | July 27, 2010 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Directly from the DISCLOSE ACT:

Sec. 214. ENHANCE DISCLAIMERS TO IDENTIFY SPONSORS OF ADS

• Require Leaders of Corporations, Unions, and Organizations to Identify that
they are Behind Political Ads. If any covered organization (corporation, union,
section 501(c)(4),(5), or (6) organization, or section 527 organization) makes
disbursements for an independent expenditure or electioneering communication, the
CEO or highest ranking official of that organization will be required to appear on
camera to say that he or she “approves this message,” just like candidates have to do
now.
• In order to prevent “Shadow Groups”, Require Top Donors To Appear in
Political Ads They Funded. In order to prevent individuals and entities from
funneling money through shell groups in order to mask their activities, the legislation
will include the following requirements:
o The top funder of the advertisement must also record a stand-by-your-ad
disclaimer.
o The top five donors of non-restricted funds to an organization that purchases
campaign-related TV advertising will be listed on the screen at the end of the
advertisement. This has been used very successfully in Washington State and
is the model for this section in the legislation.


Posted by: suekzoo1 | July 27, 2010 5:39 PM | Report abuse

suekzoo1

And please tell me why you are not a fascist/browshirt for suggesting internment camps for people that do not agree with you politically?

You liberals can keep laughing about what you support... In the 30's you were known as the "useful idiots" that helped Hitler achieve his final solution...

I am by no means suggesting Obama has something as terrible as that as an end.. What I am suggesting is that liberals are not really smart in a historical sense... They are emotional and tend to jump off the cliff before thinking things through..

We now have a fascist leader and the liberals all support him without thinking things through... Nothing but problems will result...

Posted by: 2010Rout | July 27, 2010 5:41 PM | Report abuse

The great debate regarding fascism. Here's one definition from a former President. I've always found it difficult to claim someone could be both a socialist and a fascist at the same time. I think Glenn Beck gets away with it but isn't he a comedian?

"The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism — ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power."

— Franklin D. Roosevelt, "Message from the President of the United States Transmitting Recommendations Relative to the Strengthening and Enforcement of Anti-trust Laws."

Posted by: lmsinca | July 27, 2010 5:42 PM | Report abuse

Kevin Willis: "@Ethan2010: You do understand that foreign contributions to American political campaigns are restricted by existing law, and Citizens United doesn't change that?"

They are not restricted if they have a US subsidiary, and many many do. All the oil companies do. Shell USA, for instance.

The US sub is not limited, and it is not a stretch to think the parent will not funnel money into the sub.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | July 27, 2010 5:44 PM | Report abuse

"Cinopec (China's oil company)
Citgo (Venezuela/Chavez)
Aramco (Saudi Arabia)
NOIC (Iran)

"Wouldn't it be SO AWESOME to have all of our enemies flood the t.v. airwaves with ads."

We are now enemies with China, Venezuela, and Saudi Arabia?

"It is once more worth noting that any corporation that is headquartered or incorporated outside of the U.S. is already prohibited from any spending in any U.S. political campaign. 2 U.S.C. 441e.

"Furthermore, the FEC prohibits any foreign national from being involved in any decision about spending - in other words, even if the corporation is a U.S. corporation, foreign nationals may not play a role in decisions about political spending. 11 C.F.R. 110.20(i).

"If anyone wants to know why Congress has such a low public reputation nowadays, one need look no further than DISCLOSE. Now, a Senate that hasn't passed a budget and is not even having hearings on such is going to use time today to debate a measure for no seeming purpose but to give the majority party an issue to demogogue this fall."

Posted by: sbj3 | July 27, 2010 5:45 PM | Report abuse

edit: make that,

It is not a stretch to think the parent will funnel money in.

They simply will.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | July 27, 2010 5:45 PM | Report abuse

2010Rout: "suekzoo1

And please tell me why you are not a fascist/browshirt for suggesting internment camps for people that do not agree with you politically?"

Your side made up the internment camps BS, I simply laugh at you about it. The FEMA camps are a LIE. And so is the Fascist meme.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | July 27, 2010 5:48 PM | Report abuse

sbj, idiot.

Send your comments here next time:

CITGO Petroleum Corporation
P.O. Box 4689
Houston, TX 77210-4689

or here:

Aramco Services Company
9009 West Loop South
Houston, TX 77096-1799

Posted by: Ethan2010 | July 27, 2010 5:56 PM | Report abuse

"What I am suggesting is that liberals are not really smart in a historical sense."

Says the IDIOT who can't even read a dictionary.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | July 27, 2010 5:58 PM | Report abuse

sbj: ""It is once more worth noting that any corporation that is headquartered or incorporated outside of the U.S. is already prohibited from any spending in any U.S. political campaign. 2 U.S.C. 441e."

Many foreign corporations can and do have US-based subsidiaries that are incorporated in the US. The subsidiary is not covered by this.

" "Furthermore, the FEC prohibits any foreign national from being involved in any decision about spending - in other words, even if the corporation is a U.S. corporation, foreign nationals may not play a role in decisions about political spending. 11 C.F.R. 110.20(i)."

How do you expect this is enforceable? Is the FEC going to plant flies with recording devices in every meeting at every corporation with foreign national decision-makers?

Posted by: suekzoo1 | July 27, 2010 6:02 PM | Report abuse

OT:

Vast Majority Prefer Allowing Illegal Immigrants to Stay In USA

Eighty-one percent of people questioned in the poll say they support creating a program that would allow illegal immigrants already living in the U.S. for a number of years to stay here and apply to legally remain in this country permanently if they had a job and paid back taxes, with 19 percent opposed to such a plan.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/27/cnn-poll-should-illegal-immigrants-be-allowed-to-stay/

Posted by: Ethan2010 | July 27, 2010 6:05 PM | Report abuse

Ethan2010,

Weren't you complaining earlier about incivility in political discourse? And you just called sbj3 and "Idiot" because, I guess, sbj3 had the temerity to draw a different conclusion than you? Has sbj3 ever called you an idiot?

What gives, considering you're rather lengthy post earlier decrying the lack of civil discourse?

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | July 27, 2010 6:06 PM | Report abuse

The Republicans wanted it... they got it. The headline they've been begging for:

Republicans block campaign finance disclosure bill

Posted by: Ethan2010 | July 27, 2010 6:07 PM | Report abuse

All, Happy Hour Roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/07/happy_hour_roundup_58.html

Posted by: Greg Sargent | July 27, 2010 6:08 PM | Report abuse

Troll, it is awfully darn hard to have civility in discourse when some people want to argue total untruths that are proven to be wrong. How many people posted indignation today that Unions are not addressed in the DISCLOSE act, when we have posted the language over and over showing that they are not exempted? It gets tiresome.

We can have civil discourse about the merits of legislation, or proposals, or whatever, but when the facts in black & white are being lied about, civility goes out the window.

Posted by: suekzoo1 | July 27, 2010 6:18 PM | Report abuse

"What gives, considering you're rather lengthy post earlier decrying the lack of civil discourse?"

Have you read some of these posts by Republicans?

They don't care about human decency, much less civility.

I care about both, but have chosen not to exercise civility against a pack of rabid, disease-ridden hyenas who have neither sought nor deserve my respect.

And your post pisses me off too.

You took the time to read my post asking for civil discourse. You said nothing. You could have said that you agree that calling the relative of Holocaust victims a "fascist" crosses the line. BUT YOU DIDN'T.

What DID you do?

You took the time out of your busy day to admonish me for calling sbj an idiot.

Gee thanks for proving my point. Your kind deserve NO RESPECT. NONE. GET IT?

Posted by: Ethan2010 | July 27, 2010 6:22 PM | Report abuse

Weigel is on board at Slate. Smart decision on their part.

Posted by: bernielatham | July 27, 2010 6:23 PM | Report abuse

Ah,

Ok, if I really disagree with someone than I can call them an idiot. But it really shows breathtaking incivility when someone who disagrees with me so much as appears to be even antagonistic.

sbj3 was demonstrating the redundancy of the socalled Disclosure act. How heinous of her.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | July 27, 2010 6:26 PM | Report abuse

"GET IT?"

btw, that was NOT rhetorical.

I really want to know if you understand.

Because right now I'd say that you don't.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | July 27, 2010 6:29 PM | Report abuse

Ethan2010,

If you want to get people's attention, use more caps, that works.

I myself only understand posts in all caps.

Posted by: TrollMcWingnut | July 27, 2010 6:33 PM | Report abuse

Three grammes of Soma for Ethan, please.

Posted by: sbj3 | July 27, 2010 6:33 PM | Report abuse

Cross posted there. Thanks for your reply.

"Ok, if I really disagree with someone than I can call them an idiot"

Fine with me.

"But it really shows breathtaking incivility"

OH WAHH. CRY ME A FREAKING RIVER "WHINEY BABY" (as skip would say).

Ya ever see photos of your murdered ancestors stacked like cordwood? I freaking have. So I'm a WEE BIT SENSITIVE to being called a fricking FASCIST, DIG?

"sbj3 was demonstrating"

SBJ was demonstrating that he is an idiot and doesn't care about the facts. Something he has demonstrated daily since I've been on PL.

OBVIOUSLY you don't GET IT.

Pathetic.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | July 27, 2010 6:34 PM | Report abuse

HERE'S SOME ALL CAPS FOR YOU.

DO YOU HEAR ME NOW?

YOU. DON'T. GET. IT.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | July 27, 2010 6:36 PM | Report abuse

I guess you don't hear me.

You don't hear anything that's not a Republican talking point.

Corporate America thanks you for playing their game called "politics."

Oh by the way, even though you're on their side? You still lost.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | July 27, 2010 6:53 PM | Report abuse

Hey ethan, don't be hatin' on tmwn. He may be totally wrong about 99% of what he writes, but he is civil and he will occasionally engage in a serious debate. SBJ also has his moments of sanity, no matter how few and far between. After reading the Palin thread with the Palinistas, covered in their own rage induced spittle, carelessly throwing around fascist, communist, anti-semite (which a commenter pointed out is also anti-arab) etc. I think that tmwn is a breath of fresh and civil if usually wrong air. Besides, if we are too hard on tmwn and sbj, they might take their balls and go home. Then who will we make (at least in my case) good natured fun of when they post their old, tired, easily refuted opinions.

Posted by: srw3 | July 27, 2010 7:13 PM | Report abuse

He's an idiot like the rest.

I'll defend myself against anti-semitism and bigotry until the day I die.

Anyone, like Troll, who refuses to acknowledge anti-semitism when it rears its ugly head IS COMPLICIT. PERIOD.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | July 27, 2010 7:18 PM | Report abuse

@Ethan, Sorry, I missed the anti-semite reference and discussion. That has not been my experience with tmwn, but I also don't read every thread all the time. Certainly you need a thick skin to surf the nets.

I certainly have been called an anti-semite for insisting that palestinians are people too and do not deserve collective punishment, seizure of their lands, destruction of their orchards and farmland, etc.

Posted by: srw3 | July 27, 2010 7:32 PM | Report abuse

The reason we must vote out Establishment Government Representatives whether they are Left or Right -Incumbent or Candidate!

Make sure they do not belong to any of the Global Elitist Organizations: Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission, Council on Foreign Relations, Club of Rome, Skull and Bones, Canadian Council of Chief Executives,
Harvard Elite Players, Goldman Sachs, International Monetary Fund, The United Nations, World Health Organization, World Trade Organization.

The reason we must vote out Establishment Government Representatives whether they are Left or Right, Incumbent or Candidate is explained on this 2 minute News Clip:

TWO Party Paradyne System News clip:
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/2824363/the_obama_deception_extra_part_2/


Posted by: PaulRevere4 | July 27, 2010 10:21 PM | Report abuse

Unencumber – Vote out the incumbent

If we all just don’t vote for the incumbent someone else will win. Most of us can then vote our conscience (that candidate that didn’t win the party or the third party) and send a very strong message.

Individuals for Unencumberment by Unemployment for Incumbents
I for U by U for I
We can have Revolution – Bailey Savings and Loan Style

http://sovereignthink.wordpress.com/2010/03/14/unencumber-vote-out-the-incumbent/

Posted by: sovereignthink | July 28, 2010 5:19 PM | Report abuse

Kevin_Willis: "I'm pretty sure that the US Senate is not the only body with supermajority requirements for some cases."

I'm pretty sure the US Senate is the only body that requires a supermajority for just about all ordinary legislation.

The 2/3 majority requirement for a constitutional amendment is justified for changes to the fundamental structure of government (and there are many other hurdles for an amendment to pass). There is, as you mention, the CA supermajority requirement for tax increases, but I'd hardly use that as a model for effective governance. And it doesn't apply to most ordinary legislation.

I don't know of any other legislative body on the planet that operates the way the US Senate does regarding ordinary legislation. If elections are to have consequences, the majority has to be allowed to rule. (Wanna bet that Republicans would be screaming bloody murder if the roles were reversed?) If people don't like the results, then the solution is to elect more members of the opposite party, not to allow a minority to block bill after bill.

Posted by: dasimon | July 28, 2010 6:51 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company