Well, what did they expect?

290 comments on “Well, what did they expect?”

1. So, did you plan on debating the problems with this bill and the loophole for campaign finance, or are you just going to continue to disparage people without reason?

   Didn’t think that I was disparaging you, just that it’s a bit disingenuous to claim that “The Republicans sought and found a way to exploit another loophole in campaign financing: through the Internet.” when this bill seems to be a favorite of the Senate’s Democratic leader.

   As I am against any limits of free political speech, I’m not a big fan of any aspect of campaign finance reform that impinges on it. I believe that anyone should be able to spend any amount of money they wish to espouse any view they wish. Since the Internet in particular has proven to be a way in which regular people can have a big influence in the national debate I would be particularly angered to see any attempt to control it.

2. I’ll completely agree in re: attempts to control the net, but at this point I think money’s effect on politics has gotten completely out of control, and that may even be understating the case.

   Here in NJ, we’ve got two multimillionaires running for governor. They’re both sleazes. I know which one I’m likely to vote for, since at least in some respects he’ll vote for positions I prefer, but I’ve got no real respect for either man or the process by which they got a fighting chance at the governorship.

   Public financing, I’m telling you. Tell every major candidate, “you’ve got X amount of money. Spend that and no more. You want more TV time than that, convince us to air real debates or do something newsworthy.”

   So far as presidential races are concerned, kill the conventions — they’re nothing more than theater at this point, and not especially entertaining or informative theater either. (And I say this as someone who’s watched the majority of both parties’ conventions since about 1984, with the exception of the Republican 2004 convention when I had a newborn and thus couldn’t see straight.)

   But find a way to get political bankrollers and high-priced lobbyists out of the dámņ picture, for heaven’s sake. I think I’d almost rather have høøkërš running — at least they’re obvious about what services they’re trading and when.

   TWL

3. Tim, I’m sympathetic to what you say but I’m more willing to have the George Soros’ of the world spending their millions to influence our lives than to give the government any real control over something as fundamental as free political speech.

   I can see a whole bunch of potential problems with the “X amount of money” approach. For one thing, what controls what the media covers? If Fox news gives a billion dollars worth of free publicity in the guise of “news stories” that are favorable to the candidate of their choice, the other candidate is being outspent, even if they have the same amount of money. Will there be some commission to examine news reports and make sure everyone gets equal treatment? At that point we are effectively in a dictatorship.

   Obviously, since I think the media has a liberal bias, this possibility does not thrill me. Since you believe the media to be far more conservative than I do I should think that you would have the same fears.

   And look at it this way: if we put ourselves in a position where the means to political influence are in the media, what is to stop those high priced lobbyists from buying up the media? We end up right back where we started only now our news media will have become nothing more than total whørëš for one of the political parties. Yeah, I know that some people think that they already are but it could be much much worse.

   I’m open to ideas but I’ll be very reluctant to risk everything unless I am absolutely sure I won’t regret it.

4. Before I comment on your fears, Bill, I’d like to hear from some of the non-US posters. Some countries *do* have public financing of elections — Great Britain among them, if I’m remembering correctly (and it’s very possible that I don’t), and so far as I can tell the sky hasn’t fallen.

   If nothing else, giving everyone a certain amount of free air time would eliminate the automatic need for money to start up a campaign. If people felt the urge to raise Even More Money in case they wanted more time than what was given, that’s a possibility — but frankly, if the public would have the balls to shut such people down every time they tried it, people would soon learn the wisdom of not doing so. (On the other hand, that necessitates having a voting public which is intelligent, engaged and well-informed. We’re going to need a bigger boat…)

   And sure, the media could start causing a problem. No solution is perfect. One possible fix to that is to let media openly declare who they’re supporting and regulate things such that they can’t claim to be, oh, “Fair and Balanced” without showing readily-acceptable evidence to that effect. (Yes, I’m sure that has a host of problems as well.)

   Another possibility: step in and say, “okay, you need to make sure each candidate gets at least X hours of coverage. How you balance things above that level is up to you.” In fact, I believe that rather than money, it’s often an issue in other countries of some candidates getting a certain amount of free air time.

   I truly believe that the system for political candidates (both fund-raising and elections) we have now is about two steps away from total collapse into a laughable parody of democracy, so I trust you’ll understand if I’m not especially worried about a solution that might be worse than the status quo. American politics right now is broken on so many levels, from so many sides, with so many people on all sides eagerly aiding and abetting, that I think any sane fix is worth at least a serious debate.

   (And I find it interesting that you think any “commission” trying to ensure fairness automatically means dictatorship. But that’s a conversation for another time, I think.)

   Again, though, I would like to hear from anybody who’s in a country which DOES finance its elections differently than the US does.

   TWL

5. Bill Mulligan –
   Didn’t think that I was disparaging you, just that it’s a bit disingenuous to claim that “The Republicans sought and found a way to exploit another loophole in campaign financing: through the Internet.”

   Well, which group do you think does not want limits on campaign financing?

   The original bill was to protect bloggers.

   The addition was to exempt the internet from campaign finance reform.

   And yet you assume the Democrats are voting against free speech? Yes, it sounds a little disparaging.

   Also, it’s expected that a case over campaign finance reform could go before the Supreme Court in January.

   A 5-4 to uphold the law could and sounds like it likely will change to a 5-4 to overturn it with Alito replacing O’Connor.

   I just hate the fact that, every time you turn around, some guy running for mayor has spent a record amount of money for that city, the same goes for the state level, and then the Federal level.

   And alot of the money isn’t even spent in good ways – politicians visiting “swing states” to make it look like they actually give a dámņ, too many negative ads, etc.

   It’s become obscene.

   I’m open to ideas but I’ll be very reluctant to risk everything unless I am absolutely sure I won’t regret it.

   Well, we need to start somewhere. 🙂

   Tim Lynch –
   Here in NJ, we’ve got two multimillionaires running for governor.

   You know, I actually saw an AP article yesterday saying that, because the Republican candidate is pro-choice, he “has so alienated Republican conservatives that they are threatening to withhold their votes on Election Day”.

   Apparently we’re going to have to keep repeating that bit about how it’s pathetic that everything comes down to one’s stance on abortion.

   I find it mind boggling that these people would concede a race over this sole issue.

   Man, maybe we’ll find out a few of the Republican Senators up for re-election next year are pro-choice… that’ll guarantee their defeat by Democrats for sure.

6. If nothing else, giving everyone a certain amount of free air time would eliminate the automatic need for money to start up a campaign. If people felt the urge to raise Even More Money in case they wanted more time than what was given, that’s a possibility — but frankly, if the public would have the balls to shut such people down every time they tried it, people would soon learn the wisdom of not doing so.

   My first question is–what air time are we talking about? They could have an entirely separate channel on cable, 24 hours a day of candidates speaking. It would be the lowest rated channel on the tube. Who would watch that crap? It would be like public access TV without the charm.

   So are we talking about real TV, like CBS, NBC etc? These chumps get to pre-empt LOST? Blood in the streets I tells ya, blood in the streets.

   And if they are allowed to buy more TV time I frankly don’t see the point. the public won’t care, either because they didn’t want any such controls in the first place (me) or because they don’t give a rat’s ášš either way (almost everyone else).

   You say that the public should shut down anyone who tries to do more than is needed–imagine if John Kerry sat around saying “Gee, I’d like to respond to the unfair attacks on me but I must abide by the spirit of the campaign finance rules.” Angry Democrats would have kicked him off the ticket and replaced him with somebody willing to win by any means necessary. I think that the general public WANTS someone who is willing to fight for the job. So if raising Even More Money is a possibility, Even More Money will be raised.

   And sure, the media could start causing a problem. No solution is perfect. One possible fix to that is to let media openly declare who they’re supporting and regulate things such that they can’t claim to be, oh, “Fair and Balanced” without showing readily-acceptable evidence to that effect. (Yes, I’m sure that has a host of problems as well.)

   You’re killing me here. Why would they EVER openly declare any such thing. All of them claim to be fair. And how do you prove them wrong? Both of us have entirely different definitions of what is “liberal” and “conservative” and frankly, these are not exactly cut and dry definitions. It’s pretty much a thing of perception–for some people all it takes is one issue to bounce you into a certain camp. For this suggestion to work we need, once again, some commission to come up with the definitions.

   As to why such ideas about commissions bother me (and they do, they freak me out)…I mean, who are these people? Who picks them? What are their qualifications? Are their edicts set in stone or subject to change? If one party manages to stack the deck (which would happen the first time one of them had control of a couple of the branches of government, they could arrange things that would go a long way toward making sure that the opposition never again got into a position of power.

   The irony of all this Internet stuff is that the Internet is the one way that relatively poor candidates can compete with the well funded bigwigs. The cost of reaching enough people to mount a genuine grassroots campaign has been prohibitive but with the net people can organize and share information for nothing. Dean without the Internet would have been nothing. It wasn’t enough but it came dámņ close. It doesn’t surprise me that a lot of mainstream types would want to control it.

   Let me emphasize, I know you have genuinely good intentions here, but I see too many potential disasters. Maybe I’m paranoid.

   This bill allows bloggers to be more free with their speech, but it also had a bit tacked on that creates a campaign finance loophole.

   I’ll admit that I’m relying on DailyKos a lot more here than I usually do but according to what I’m reading there, this is A-the exact same bill that Harry reid proposed in the senate and B-has no bits tacked on. It’s a one sentence bill. In fact, Nancy Pelosi’s argument in voting it down was that there was no opportunity to amend it.

   It’s quite simple–I don’t trust the government to be able to fairly decide which web sites are protected and which are not; which group websites are political committees and which are not; who is a member of the press and who is not; what is a blog and what is not; etc.

   Hopefully the Supreme Court will toss all of this out and such bills will be unnecessary.

7. This is all depressing me. thank goodness the new King Kong trailer is at http://movies.apple.com/movies/universal/king_kong/king_kong-tlr_h480.mov

   Of the trailer I can only say: Oh. My. God.

8. Just a quick response to Curtis Rose above, about the “Most Americans only watch American media” statement. Most Americans only have ACCESS to American media. Make that easy access. I live just outside of Philadelphia and until recently, when we got digital cable, all I had was American stuff. It’s almost like saying most Americans only shop in American stores. Well, yeah. Kinda difficult for me to shop in a European store.

   And as far as the whole did Hussein (Calling him Saddam is one of my HUGE pet peeves unless you personally know the twerp) Anyway, did he have WMD? All the peope out there saying the evidence doesn’t support it, nothing’s been found, on and on, just reminds me of one of the wisest of paranomal arguments. Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.

9. This morning’s news report on NPR was a blatant example of what has been discussed repeatedly in this very thread. The Deficit Reduction Plan was discussed on the floor yesterday. Democrats blasted it as being just the oppositie, feeding snuggly into a nice response by Republicans, who replied simply that the Democrats as criticizing, but bringing but have repeatedly failed to bring any plan of their own to the table.

   Fred

10. Tim Lynch indirectly points out one of the problems that I’ve had with both politiians and the media for a good long while now. They both seem more interested in self-promotion and a general 4-year-old-like “Hey, look at ME!” mentality to actually, y’know, do anything important. What happened to the time when leaders led for the good of the country and not the advancement of their party’s ideals? What happened to the time when those in the news media reported what happened and, with respects to Bill O’ Reilly, didn’t spin it the way they wanted? Too much of the news reporting has become what could be called tabloid-esque. And unfortunately, too many of the politicians have become tabloid worthy in the last few years. I’m sure that part of the reason CBS ran with the National Guard document story was they THOUGHT they had a scoop and ran with it before really checking it out. What the news people need to do is report on the news, the NEWS, and keep the opinions to themselves. What the politicians need to do is lead, and stop worrying about keeping themselves in power.

11. Hussein (Calling him Saddam is one of my HUGE pet peeves unless you personally know the twerp)

    Hussein passed away in 1999. His son, Abdullah is now the King of Jordan.

12. Don’t rely on Kos or anyone else.
    HR 1606

    The bill isn’t one sentence, because the structure of bills require multiple sections, such as summaries, short titles, etc. But the bill is pretty short.

    All it does is exempt the internet from the definition of “Public Communication” in the Federal Election Campaign Act.

    So anything and everything the Federal Election Campaign Act does to regulate public communication wouldn’t apply to the internet.

13. Absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.

    This is true. However, the problem with that line of thought is that we are now several years from the start of the war in Iraq.

    The other problem with this defense I’ve already stated – it allows one to easily decide upon an issue without considering other alternatives.

    In this case, one alternative is that Saddam Hussein did what the UN/US told him to do and that, leading up to and including the US invasion, he had no WMD.

    Besides, how much time should be given to finding such evidence before deciding it does not actually exist?

    We’ve got over 100k troops in Iraq, have plenty of satellites and plans have that checked things out from the air, and there is still no WMD.

14. Don’t rely on Kos or anyone else.
    HR 1606

    Hmm. It seems like all of us have been a little off in our interpretation of this bill and its wording.

    For one, it was introduced by a Republican (Hensarling of Texas). Two, it makes no mention specifically of blogs or campaign financing.

    But “communications over the Internet” is certainly a broad definition, to say the least.

15. Rat, the problem with the modern American media is about 90% of what we call “news” is actually punditry. O’Riley, Hannity and his sock puppet, Limbaugh, Chris Mathews, etc, etc, these guys aren’t reporting the news, they’re offering “analysis” or “spin” if you want to use the term O’Riley claims to hate but engages in on a daily basis. Their job isn’t to report the facts, but to offer pithy quotes that are entertaining.

    As for CBS News and Dan Rather, I’ve been saying for years that the real problem with Rather isn’t that he’s biased, it’s that he’s nuts. The memo thing was such a clumsy forgery that I’d have to believe that an intelligent but biased person would have made sure their fake documents were good before running with it. But Rather is such a douchebag that he swallowed it whole without a second look.

    As for the idea of media bias in general, I always cringe when I hear people talk about how “THE MEDIA” is biased against them because the media isn’t one single monolithic block, not even within the same organization. For example, the NY Times may in general tilt towards the left, but they also ran those unbelievably credulous stories by Judith Miller about Hussein’s nonexistante nuclear weapons program. On the other side, Fox News may be dominated by republican hacks, but about once a month, Alan Colmes is allowed to take the tape off of his mouth and say something.

    There are newspapers that tilt to the left. There are also those (NY Post, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal) that tilt to the right. On the other hand, the overwhelmingly majority of TV and radio pundits are rightwingers, even if many of the anchors are more liberal.

    My point is, you kind find support for the argument that the media is biased left or right if you look. And it’s been my experience that the people scream the loudest about media bias don’t really want reporting that is truly “fair and balanced.” They want the media to slant everything their way 100% of the time.

16. The Wshington Post tilts to the right? The Washington Post? The one published in Washington?

17. My guess would be that he meant the Washington Times.

    And John, that’s exactly how I read the bill, but I’m not familiar enough with the overriding bill to make judgement.

18. Sorry, that should have been the Washington TIMES.

19. With regards to campaign financing, in light of the deficit issue, why should these politicians get ANY of my tax dollars to run? Even the wealthiest candidate falls far, far short in personal wealth to finance a complete national campaign. One would hope that by being forced to rely on donors from across the country, each candidate is required to garner at least a nucleus of support to demonstrate they are competitive for such a campaign. Is the current system perfect? No, but no matter how you reform it, there’s always going to be someone waiting in the wings to figure out how to break the system. Lobbyists, party officials, and politicians all have vested interests in doing so. Personally, I’d like to see us go back to a time where most politicians demonstrated their leadership chops by working their way up through the system, and campaign financing, while a concern, wasn’t that bad because they had that nucleus of individual supporters and donors that knew who they were and why they should be supported for a higher office.

    Of course, since I doubt such a time ever truly existed, it’d probably be really hard to go back to it.

    Further, in elections like the upcoming 2008 presidential elections, we might be looking at primary fields with 10 initial candidates for both parties, and possibly a handful of third party candidates – imagine how much that’s going to cost us with the exisiting public campaign financing currently available, much less than if we went to a complete public financing solution. With a growing deficit and no solution from either party presenting itself, I can’t imagine spending even more money on such a lackluster group of supposed leaders when they can’t even give us one stinking good thing in government.

20. As an extreme example, imagine that we switch to complete public financing of campaigns. Do you really want to foot the bill of every nutcase, whackjob, or hatemonger that can manage to fill out the forms to get financing for his/her signature drive in every state (oh yeah, that’d have to be included, now, wouldn’t it? Otherwise, you’d still only have candidates running for office that could afford to run statewide petition drives in every state)?

21. imagine how much that’s going to cost us with the exisiting public campaign financing currently available

    I thought the situation was that only the the final candidate for each party got any public funds?

    And that a third party candidate can only get funds based on past performances in the presidential election (which means, they aren’t getting squat).

22. Den, that’s it exactly. In any of these news channels, you’ve got to dig through all the analysis to really find out what the hëll happened. And THANK YOU for pointing out that the media is not a single monolithic entity. It’s a concept that is so OBVIOUS and yet those in the media are constantly homogenized under this title. In the perfect solution, every reporter in the country should take lessons from Jon Stewart. Not about reporting, but about looking at the situation and saying, “Okay, listen to THIS one…” I’d also love it if they realized that they themselves are not the reason people watch the news. Too many of these reporters try to make themselves part of the story, misdirecting the attention from where it should be.

23. If we switch to a system where the only money candidates can spend is what we provide them there is no way we could just limit it to the two current parties. Jason seems right; we would have to provide money to just about anyone, unless there is some kind of petition requirement or something. In that vein, I’d like to announce my candidacy for president–it’d be a great way to spend the summer and I promise that my campaign bus (nicknamed ATRAGON) will always have ready supplies of sushi and DVDs as we travel the roads of this great country, confusing the locals as we blow into town, play miniature golf, and leave without making any promises whatsoever.

    Tim, you can be my VP candidate, so we can get the liberal vote (“Divide and Conquer!” would be our motto, with a logo that has a nailed fist smashing into the Earth–the kids will love it!). Den, you’re my offical sushi taster in case Tim gets any ideas (our administration would be run in much the same way as the Star Trek Mirror Universe. Some of you may need to grow beards.)

    I love this plan! I’m excited to be a part of it! Let’s do it!

24. Raw fish? Pass. You have any idea how many foodborne illnesses sushi can carry.

    Already have the goatee, though. 🙂

25. Hmm… if I volunteer to help with your campaign, Bill, does that mean I’d have to shave, since I already have a goatee?

    And Craig, you are probably right. I don’t know for sure if all primary candidates get funds or just the final ones from each party. And the third-party requirements would definitely go a long way to explain why we haven’t seen any truly competitive ones. Of course, I never claimed to be in a No-Spin zone, either 😉

26. hey, you could say the same about your Aunt Marge’s potato salad if it got left out in the sun. It’s all in how it’s prepared. You don’t see anything bad happening to the Japanese, except in their movies and TV shows where they are constantly being mutated by some hideous parasites…so in other words, never mind, point taken.

27. Since I was critical of those Democrats who found race baiting a legitimate form of political discourse I should point out that some are now showing some real integrity and courage in pointing out the inappropriateness of such actions:…members of the Congressional Black Caucus said Baltimore lawmakers in the General Assembly should “cease and desist” from making racial comments about Mr. Steele — the first black man to win a statewide election in Maryland.

    “My plan is to meet with them and ask them to stop this at once,” said U.S. Rep. Elijah E. Cummings, Baltimore Democrat and former Black Caucus chairman.

    Rep. Albert R. Wynn, a black Prince George’s County Democrat, admonished Baltimore lawmakers and even described Mr. Steele as “a likable guy.”

    “I think the comments and the attacks were outrageous and reprehensible. It does a disservice to the African-American community, and it creates a herd mentality that whatever the Democrats say we should repeat,” Mr. Wynn said.

28. I have a goatee, too…

    …hmmmm…

    Are you sure we’re not already in the Mirror Universe? :>

29. Since Star Trek has come up here, it gives me an opportunity to not completely digress in expressing something about Spike TV’s Trek broadcasting: is anybody else bugged about the order in which they show Trek stuff in the afternoon?

    I got home early from work today – and I have to work early :(( – so I had time (in the Eastern time zone) to see about one and a half Deep Space Nines, which were followed by a three hour Next Generation block. Well – and this isn’t the first time that I’ve noticed this – after watching DS9 – Nog losing his leg, and Kira meeting Dukat’s Pa’ Wraith (sp?) cult, in this case – TNG just seemed like a non-compelling, non-watchable let-down – even with a very young and _VERY_ comely Ashley Judd on …. (BTW – as Wesley was in the ep – the one where he comes for a visit and everyone, except he and the aforementioned Ms. Judd, has become addicted to this game Riker [who I know I saw sizing up Ashley – they call him “Number One” because he gets first crack at the babes, right? ;)] brought on board – if anybody missed VH-1’s “I Love the 80’s 3-D”, even Wil Wheaton says “Oh, SHUT UP, already!” to Wesley! Good on him/poor him, playing the guy ….) They really should switch the broadcast order (and not just because I would be home from work to see DS9 more often)….

30. Are you sure we’re not already in the Mirror Universe? :>

    As yet another fellow with a goutee, I’d have to think we are. 🙂

    if anybody missed VH-1’s “I Love the 80’s 3-D”, even Wil Wheaton says “Oh, SHUT UP, already!” to Wesley!

    Yeah, I caught that the other night – it was the one for 1987. It’s pretty funny to see Wheaton reaming himself over how he looked & acted on TNG. 🙂

31. It’s interesting what things people will question and what things people will readily accept as true. Comic book readers are often healthily skeptical about comic book matters. Tell us that a character has died, and we demand to see the body (and even then often aren’t convinced). But in real life, it seems we sometimes except stories a little too hastily.

    According to the story in the Washington Times (cited by Bill Mulligan), Michael Steele was pelted by Oreo cookies “during a campaign appearance”. But if one reads the story, one notes it doesn’t say when this alleged Oreo-pelting incident occurred or who attests to this as being factual.

    A person at DailyKos (hmm, where have I heard that name before) investigated this story and found that there’s a bit more — or rather less — to it than a casual reader might assume.

    The incident in question apparently occurred in 2002 at a debate between Bob Ehrlich and Kathleen Townsend. (Ehrlich was the Republican candidate for governor; Steele was his running mate, for the post of lieutenant governor). The original claim — made by a person from the Ehrlich campaign, Paul Schurick, in post-debate spin, but not witnessed or attested to by anyone else present — was that Oreo cookies were “distributed” to the audience.

    There is no record of any organized campaign to pass out Oreo cookies to the audience. There is no record of any cookies being thrown at Steele. Not even Steele witnessed any cookies being thrown.

    In defending Schurick’s claim, Steele said that an Oreo cookie “rolled to his feet during the debate”. In other words, at some point he looked down and saw a cookie on the floor. He had no idea how it got there. Here’s what he is quoted as saying in regard to the cookie: “Maybe it was just someone having their snack, but it was there,” Steele said. “If it happened, shame on them if they are that immature and that threatened by me.“

    This is a good case of how a story, passed along from one person to another, often grows and changes. In 2002 when Steele saw a cookie at his feet, this was a non-story.

    Note the lack of facts and details in the Washington Times story. That’s what should have flagged it to alert comic book readers as being as dubious as Dr. Doom’s death. A reliable newspaper story would have given details such as when the alleged incident occurred, who witnessed it, who took part, etc.

    How many cookies were supposedly thrown? What was Steele doing when it occurred? How did he react? How did others around him (audience members, his security detail) react? Are there any pictures, or video, of it? Those are the kinds of details one would expect to read in a legitimate news story about such an incident. But the Washington Times item, despite being dressed up to look like a news story, isn’t one. The only “reporting” done by the Times in this story is to report what various political figures said in reaction to the alleged incident. No effort is made to report the actual details of the incident itself, or to verify those details.

    This is the sad state that journalism has come to at places such as The Washington Times. Nor, I fear, can this be attributed to mere sloppiness. The omission of the date of the alleged incident — October of 2002 — makes this appear to be a recent or current incident. Nothing in the quoted responses in the article gives any reason to suspect this is a story about a cookie being seen at Steele’s feet 3 years ago. My feeling is it takes a certain amount of craft to put together a story which misleads the readers as skillfully as this one does.

    What I’ve written above is based on what I read in the DailyKos diary (as reposted at PolicalCortex.com, http://www.politicalcortex.com/story/2005/11/3/145015/641). I have not personally checked the newspaper stories cited (and quoted from) in that diary, since they date back 2 to 3 years and so are not readily available. It’s therefore possible that I am the one being misled. But I doubt it. One reason the Washington Times piece strikes me as dubious is because it is all about reactions to an alleged incident from people with no knowledge of the facts. In contrast, the Kos piece is about going back to dig up and verify the facts of the incident. That’s the right approach, and people who take that approach are more likely to come up with the facts than those who don’t.

    If I could, I would look up the stories cited for myself. I encourage anyone else who is interested, especially someone with access to a good library (or Lexis) to do so.

32. Bill,

    Okay, you’re paranoid that there’s no way to take money out of the process that doesn’t cause even more problems. I still want to hear details about how other countries have done it (and how successful they’ve been), so let’s table that.

    Let’s turn it around. Let’s have the money stay in politics, but insist on absolute and total transparency. Candidates (and those currently in office) need to disclose every scrap of largesse they’ve been given by supporters or lobbyists. No fake organizations with cute names that do nothing but fog the issue. If a politician is going to take money from a particular individual or organization, they must cite the name and the amount — in a location that is easily accessible to all members of the public. Hëll, send it out with the ballot materials to all registered voters.

    You do that and do it properly, and I’m less concerned about the money — because at least it’s obvious where it’s coming from and people can supposedly judge accordingly.

    Thoughts on that?

    (Aside: has anyone else here read David Brin’s _The Transparent Society_? It’s a nonfiction work analyzing a lot of societal trends — came out around 5-10 years ago. I don’t agree with all of it and some of it is likely outdated by now, but I think it’s also got a lot of food for thought.)

    And on a related note — something else that would fix the political process. Kill off the electronic voting machines. All of ’em. Go back to paper ballots counted by hand. The only drawback is that it’s going to take a little longer — but there’s no hacking, no mysterious lapses in system maintenance, and a lot fewer ways for anyone to even suspect shenanigans.

    Thoughts on either of these?

    TWL

33. Let’s turn it around. Let’s have the money stay in politics, but insist on absolute and total transparency. Candidates (and those currently in office) need to disclose every scrap of largesse they’ve been given by supporters or lobbyists. No fake organizations with cute names that do nothing but fog the issue. If a politician is going to take money from a particular individual or organization, they must cite the name and the amount — in a location that is easily accessible to all members of the public. Hëll, send it out with the ballot materials to all registered voters.

    You do that and do it properly, and I’m less concerned about the money — because at least it’s obvious where it’s coming from and people can supposedly judge accordingly.

    Thoughts on that?

    No problem at all. In fact, I’m amazed it’s not already the case. Of course, one person’s “fake organization with cute names” is another persons real organization with a perfectly legitimate name but we can work on that. I’d support this without reservation.

    And on a related note — something else that would fix the political process. Kill off the electronic voting machines. All of ’em. Go back to paper ballots counted by hand. The only drawback is that it’s going to take a little longer — but there’s no hacking, no mysterious lapses in system maintenance, and a lot fewer ways for anyone to even suspect shenanigans.

    Again, no problem at all. Coupled with some better way of ensuring that only legitimate voters vote it would go a long way toward making the process work better. (Remember, a vote illegally cast has exactly and precisely the same effect as one that is illegally destroyed).

    Nova Land– while I have to agree that the facts seem to be different from the impression that the article gave–being pelted with oreo is considerably different from having one tossed at you–if the folks at Kos gave you the impression that the Washington Time were deliberately trying to “makes this appear to be a recent or current incident” they were guilty of the very kind of misrepresentation they decried. From the article I cited:
    During the 2002 campaign, Democratic supporters pelted Mr. Steele with Oreo cookies during a gubernatorial debate at Morgan State University in Baltimore.

    I might add that while the image of a guy being knocked tot he ground by cookies is a vast overstatement, saying that having a cookie rolling to one’s feet is the same as looking down and seeing one there is also playing around a bit.

    It’s possible that Steele made the whole thing up. But since it is undeniable that he has been characterized as a “Sambo” (complete with a blackface photo manip), and “Uncle Tom” (I always have a flashback to an episode of The Jeffersons when I hear that. If you’ve seen it you know which one I mean), and had his credit card records stolen by two people whose lawyer bills for this crime are being paid for by the Democratic party, this seems to consistent with the facts.

    It would be ironic if Democrats were disgracing themselves trying to defend something they didn’t even really do. Again, kudos to those who condemn this and any other racial attacks, real or imagined.

34. Hi, Bill! “While I have to agree that the facts seem to be different from the impression that the article gave — being pelted with oreo is considerably different from having one tossed at you — if the folks at Kos gave you the impression that the Washington Time were deliberately trying to “makes this appear to be a recent or current incident” they were guilty of the very kind of misrepresentation they decried.

    No, that was my own error, for which I apologize. I’m short on sleep and a bit careless at the moment, both in my reading and my writing. The Kos article states clearly at the very beginning: “Reporter S.A. Miller has posted two stories in three days claiming that, in 2002, liberals assaulted Steele with Oreo cookies.

    The focus of the Kos article is the difference between how the Washington Times reported the 2002 incident (as established fact, that Steele was pelted) and what is actually known about the incident (that a political operative claimed, without evidence or corroboration, that Oreo cookies were passed out to members of the audience, and that Steele said he saw a cookie rolling on the floor).

    Here is the Kos diarist’s own words, since I’m not doing a very good job today of fairly reproducing what people have said.

    “There’s one problem. Based on my quick scan of Maryland newspaper archives, I don’t think this incident ever happened. Instead, it was contrived by a Republican operative and hyped by the Times.

    “Now, let me clear as to what I’m investigating. The Times claims Steele was ‘pelted’ with Oreo cookies. That is not an ambiguous phrasing. ‘Pelting’ means to ‘strike or assail repeatedly with or as if with blows or missiles.’ It implies violence, and that the victim was actually struck with something. Calling Michael Steele an ‘oreo’ or joking about Oreo cookies IS racist – but it’s very different than violently throwing food at him.

    The impression that the Washington Times was attempting to pass a 2002 incident off as current is strictly my error. Although I read the entire news story, I obviously did not read it well. Here’s how and why I went astray:

    The first paragraphs of the story say:

    “Black Democratic leaders in Maryland say that racially tinged attacks against Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele in his bid for the U.S. Senate are fair because he is a conservative Republican.

    “Such attacks against the first black man to win a statewide election in Maryland include pelting him with Oreo cookies during a campaign appearance, calling him an ‘Uncle Tom’ and depicting him as a black-faced minstrel on a liberal Web log.”

    From that I formed the impression that the attacks were being alleged to have occurred during the current campaign. (Which is a reasonable reading of those two paragraphs as they stand.) However, in paragraph 10 (halfway through the story) Miller clarifies: During the 2002 campaign, Democratic supporters pelted Mr. Steele with Oreo cookies during a gubernatorial debate at Morgan State University in Baltimore.”

    That’s not entirely clear as written. If one has already formed the impression that Steele was pelted during the current campaign, a careless reader might see that later paragraph as referring to a prior, additional incident. (Or a careless reader might not note that date in the middle paragraph at all.) Usually I’m a fairly careful reader, especially when I’m reading something in order to pass along information about it to others, but today I was definitely in the ranks of the careless.

    I’m curious how many people who have heard or read this story (or who have had it told to them by others) came away with the impression that it is talking about an incident or incidents of pelting that happened during the current campaign. You, obviously, read the story more carefully and more correctly than I did.

    But I have to ask: did you read it that carefully initially, or did you need to go back to re-read it (after reading my erroneous post) to spot that the sole alleged pelting incident was from 2002, and not something that was occurring in the current campaign? I ask because the wording of your prior posts seems to imply the latter. (For example, you wrote: “…as opposed to the marked lack of attention that the Maryland Democrats will get.” That certainly sounds as if you were writing about an incident that happened recently and is currently being ignored in the media, rather than about something which happened 3 years ago and was already covered.)

    Knuckles, similar question for you. Was it clear to you from Bill’s summary of the Washington Times story that the sole alleged pelting incident occurred 3 years ago and is not something that is happening during the current campaign? The use of present tense in what you wrote — “The people who are attacking him in the press and pelting him with Oreo cookies during his campaign…” — sounds to me as if you were under the impression this was something that was happening now, not something alleged to have happened once several years ago.

    “I might add that while the image of a guy being knocked to the ground by cookies is a vast overstatement, saying that having a cookie rolling to one’s feet is the same as looking down and seeing one there is also playing around a bit.” Summing up Steele’s statement that way was my wording, not the Kos diarist’s, so any blame for this rests with me. But I’m not sure I agree with you on this one.

    Eyewitness testimony is a tricky thing, even when one is dealing with unbiased witnesses (which in this case we aren’t). It’s not clear when Steele first told the story about the cookie, what exactly he said, and how much of what he said reflects what he actually saw as opposed to his interpretation of what he saw.

    We can reasonably conclude Steele wasn’t actually hit by Oreos. If he had been, he (and others) probably would have noticed (and spoken up). We can also reasonably conclude there wasn’t any organized Oreo-tossing going on — if any significant number of cookies had been tossed, surely someone would have noticed the flying objects (and surely there would have been more than one cookie on the ground for Steele or others to have seen).

    Can we conclude that any Oreos were tossed? I don’t think we reasonably can. We can’t rule it out — because if Steele is telling the truth, there was at some point an object on the ground which looked to him like an Oreo — but since neither Steele nor anyone else saw how the cookie got there then cookie-tossing is only one possibility.

    We do know that (assuming he is telling the truth to the best of his recollection) at some point Steele looked down and saw what looked like an Oreo cookie. But did he actually see it roll? Or is that simply a conclusion he reached (or an impression he had) upon looking down and seeing a cookie where he had not previously noticed one? When you turn your head, objects that you see during the head-turning appear to be moving.

    It’s also an unfortunate but undeniable fact that stories often grow a little bit — becoming more detailed and more definite — with re-telling. The “rolled to my feet” detail is reported in a story dated November 22 — more than 50 days after the September 30 debate. If this was the first time Steele provided that detail, I’d consider it highly suspect. If it was not the first time, then I’d like to see some record of his earlier statements to compare it to. (If, from the beginning, Steele said a cookie had rolled to his feet, that would lend some credibility to this detail. But, from the limited evidence available, that does not appear to be the case.)

    I’m not willing to conclude Steele actually saw a moving cookie without further evidence to support that. So I went with what I thought (and still think) is as far as one can reasonably go with the evidence as presented: at some point Steele saw a cookie on the ground where he had not previously seen one.

    As I say, I’m short on sleep and not at my sharpest. I’ll ponder this again when my judgemtn is a bit clearer to see if I still think my wording was fair.

35. oops. Lack of ability to preview led to a small formatting error which may make a big difference in understanding who said what in the above post.

    Early in the post I wrote that I was going to quote the Kos diarist’s own words. And I did. I thought I was putting those words in bold, to make it clear where I was quoting from the diary. However, I quoted two paragraphs from the diary and only one came out in bold. That makes it unclear where quote stops and my words resume.

    Here is what should have appeared in bold:

    There’s one problem. Based on my quick scan of Maryland newspaper archives, I don’t think this incident ever happened. Instead, it was contrived by a Republican operative and hyped by the Times.

    “Now, let me clear as to what I’m investigating. The Times claims Steele was ‘pelted’ with Oreo cookies. That is not an ambiguous phrasing. ‘Pelting’ means to ‘strike or assail repeatedly with or as if with blows or missiles.’ It implies violence, and that the victim was actually struck with something. Calling Michael Steele an ‘oreo’ or joking about Oreo cookies IS racist – but it’s very different than violently throwing food at him.”

    The next paragraph, in which I admit that “The impression that the Washington Times was attempting to pass a 2002 incident off as current is strictly my error”, is me speaking again.

    Apologies for any confusion that caused! If I can’t get the coding right, I guess I need to write shorter posts.

36. Nova Land, I can’t say for sure whta I was thinking when I wrote that but Iprobably already knew about the incident from the 2002 campaign since I had followed the campaign fairly closely–I was in a state of disbelief that even a KENNEDY couldn’t beat a REPUBLICAN in the state of MARYLAND. The original article came from the Baltimore Sun describing how the audience at the debate had behaved in a manner that, in my opinion, was more consistant with brownshirts than Americans. The oreo bit was a relatively minor part.

    It’s interesting how some things resonate and some don’t. We have two women who may go to jail for illegally representing thmesleves to get a political candidates credit card records and all the public seems to care about is whether or not people are tossing their cookies.

    But I do think that the cookie tossing has been clearly overused and seems to have little basis in fact (I’m not saying Steele lied but the image of a guy buried under a pile of black and white crumbs has taken hold). So it’s certainly fair to point out to anyone who uses it that this story is less than it seems. It probably doesn’t change the larger issue of race baiting in this camapaign but it’s still fair. So thanks for the heads up.

37. here’s a depressing addition to the topic of science supression. From a Novak column:

    Sen. James Inhofe, chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, at an Oct. 26 hearing drew from an animal rights activist an admission that he advocated murder of medical researchers who performed experiments on animals.

    Dr. Jerry Vlasak of North American Animal Liberation was quoted as saying at an animal rights convention: “I don’t think you’d have to kill, assassinate too many. I think for five lives, 10 lives, 15 human lives, we could save a million, 2 million, or 10 million non-human lives.”

    Questioned by Inhofe whether he was “advocating the murder of individuals,” Vlasak replied: “I made that statement, and I stand by that statement.”

    10 researchers killed would have a far more devastating effect on science than the creationsist could ever dream of. I hope to God the FBI is infiltrating these groups. In my experience they aren’t filled with the brightest bulbs, it shouldn’t be too difficult to trick them.

38. Anyone who advocated murder for a political point is an idiot, pure and simple.

    With that said, I’m not as worried about the animal rights nutjobs who simply talk about thins like this as I am the pro-life nutjobs who have actually carried out murder and bombings to advance their cause.

    And by saying that, I am in no way implying that all animal rights activists or pro-lifers are nutjobs. But the ones that are should be locked up.

39. With that said, I’m not as worried about the animal rights nutjobs who simply talk about thins like this as I am the pro-life nutjobs who have actually carried out murder and bombings to advance their cause.

    While I don’t think anyone has been killed by them yet, the animal rights wackos have actually carried out many bombings, arsons, and other violent acts. It’s just a matter of time before someone is klilled, whether on purpose or just from being in the wrong place when they strike.

40. That is true, Bill, but while many animal rights activists who do stupid things like that at least try to avoid killing people, there have already been numerous cases where so-called “pro-life” individuals have deliberately and with premeditation, committed acts of murder and arson, resulting in people’s deaths.

41. Thoughts on either of these.

    Hanging CHAD’s, my friend. Hanging, pregnant, half-baked, bloated, constipated CHAD’s.

    Granted, that is a problem on the state level, not federal, but the fact that there are no balloting standards for a federal election is kind of disturbing.

    But then, I’m also very disturbed by the fact that I get ballots for City/County of Denver & state of Colorado with everything written in both English and Spanish, and since that doubles the length of the ballot, it doubles the postage required to mail the dámņ thing back. (Another great reason for making English the only official language… anyways).

    Electronic machines can work if you can keep morons like, oh, CEO’s of Diebold from saying things like he will “deliver Ohio to Bush”, and then you get voting irregularities with his machines in Ohio, a state that went to Bush.

    Obviously, a paper trail is a must, but electronic machines can work. And they should also be able to prevent everybody’s “CHAD’s” from fûçkìņg up an election. 🙂

42. I guess the lesson for this then, Craig, is that no matter what system we use, the politicians will figure out a way to cheat.

    Here’s hoping Jeb Bush never runs for president.

43. Den,
    Well, yes, but I don’t know that the anti-abortion terrorists are having much effect on science, which is what I was commenting on. I’m more afraid of the sort of islamofacists currently wilding in France than I am of the whole lot of them but they aren’t pertinant to the point either.

44. Just a quick hypothetical: What if all political donations had to go to a particular candidate, not a political organization? If the problem is that the soft money keeps getting funneled somehow through special interest groups, what if all individual and corporate donations had to go directly to a specified candidate’s campaign? Maybe up the limit a candidate could take from an individual donor, let’s say double or triple it, but in the end, no more smoke and mirrors about where the money comes from. I don’t know, maybe there’s no way to keep people from setting up some kind of version of 527’s or PAC’s or whatever, but what if?

45. Perhaps, Bill, but the idea of hordes of vegans killing researchers is just a hypethetical, while there have been several documented cases of anti-abortionists wackjobs shooting doctors. I’d say the latter is still ahead on the impact on science.

    As for what’s going in France, I’m sure somehow the European media has figured out how to blame that on America by now.

46. With that said, I’m not as worried about the animal rights nutjobs who simply talk about thins like this as I am the pro-life nutjobs who have actually carried out murder and bombings to advance their cause.

    Are you serious? Are you really living in fear there is any sizable portion of “pro-life nutjobs” who are going murder and bomb to advance their (my) caue?

    Obviously there are a few cases where this has happened. But to even bring it up as a fear honestly bewilders me. When you look at the large number who are pro-life, you realize that those who murder and bomb are an extremely minute portion of the whole. And when someone does it, pro-lifers don’t just sit quietly, we overwhelmingly denounce the action. You don’t have a large number of us demonstrating outside the trial saying the killer is being persecuted.

    Am I missing something? I am I living in an alternate reality? I am serious. Why would you even express this as a fear when the evidence overwhelmingly says otherwise. You probably are in as much danger from a nut-job prolifer as you are from someone going “postal” in a post office.

    Just wondering.

    Iowa Jim

47. Sigh. Strawman off the port bow!

    I knew that as soon as I typed that, even with the disclaimer, someone would accuse me of saying “all” or “most” pro-lifers are murderers and bombings.

    Jim, I’m not sure if you read my entire post or just went into rant mode because you saw “pro-lifer” and “bombings” in the same sentence, but no, I don’t think there are “a sizable number” of pro-lifers who are murderers or bombers.

    It’s a small number, yes, but how many Eric Rudolph’s do you need before fear of being bombed at a public event like the Olympics becomes legitimate in your mind? To me, one is more than enough.

48. >With that said, I’m not as worried about the animal rights nutjobs who simply talk about thins like this as I am the pro-life nutjobs who have actually carried out murder and bombings to advance their cause.

    >Are you serious? Are you really living in fear there is any sizable portion of “pro-life nutjobs” who are going murder and bomb to advance their (my) caue?

    >Obviously there are a few cases where this has happened. But to even bring it up as a fear honestly bewilders me. When you look at the large number who are pro-life, you realize that those who murder and bomb are an extremely minute portion of the whole. And when someone does it, pro-lifers don’t just sit quietly, we overwhelmingly denounce the action. You don’t have a large number of us demonstrating outside the trial saying the killer is being persecuted.

    >Am I missing something? I am I living in an alternate reality? I am serious. Why would you even express this as a fear when the evidence overwhelmingly says otherwise. You probably are in as much danger from a nut-job prolifer as you are from someone going “postal” in a post office.

    >Just wondering.

    >Iowa Jim

    Yes, IJ, you *are* missing something.

    You apparently didn’t comprehend his posting.

    He said (and I fully agree with it) that he is worried about those groups and individuals *who have actually carried out murders and bombings* than those who just are full of big talk.

    Please, name us one bombing that has been committed in the name of “pro-choice”. Here’s some space to do it.

    Or one arson.

    Or, the big one – please give us the name of a person who has been *murdered* in the name of “pro-choice”.

    And don’t try pulling the bit of “the unborn killed by abortion” – we’re talking about someone killing someone like a doctor, or a nurse, or a police officer *in the name of “pro-choice” – equivalent to individuals like Paul Hill, or Eric Rudolph, who have killed in the cause of “stopping abortion”.

    I doubt you can come up with a single one – and I won’t be holding my breath waiting for it.

    No, it’s those people (and related individuals, such as the person facing charges of threatening to kill the husband and judge in the Terri Schiavo case) who we should *all* be worried about.

    Because they are cut from the same mold – they claim to care all about “life” – and then go out of their way to try and take them.

    “Pro-life”. Yeah, right. Pull the other one.

49. Are you really living in fear there is any sizable portion of “pro-life nutjobs” who are going murder and bomb to advance their (my) caue?

    He never said “a sizable portion”, Jim, and you know it.

    Do I walk around every day watching my back lest those slippery pro-lifers knife me when I’m not watching? No, of course not.

    Am I more worried about the extremes of the pro-life movement than the extremes of the pro-choice movement? Hëll yes, for any number of eminently sane reasons.

    T’ain’t paranoia, Jim; ’tis looking at the numbers.

    And on a different note, Craig:

    Electronic machines can work if you can keep morons like, oh, CEO’s of Diebold from saying things like he will “deliver Ohio to Bush”, and then you get voting irregularities with his machines in Ohio, a state that went to Bush.

    Obviously that’s a glaring example of a problem with them … but right now, I don’t see much evidence that the machines can be trusted. If the machines have utterly transparent open-source code, and each voter gets a verified paper receipt that can be checked after the fact … then sure, I’m all for ’em. But right now that’s not the case, and there are a number of reasons why lots of individuals and organizations would like it never to be the case.

    TWL

50. *sigh*

    I’m just depressed these days, as it seems like torture has now become….a partisan issue.