[QUOTE=Warfish;4328073]It's just kinda funny that your Avatar represent almost everything you claim to be against, is all.
Like me having say, Stalin as my Avatar, for example.
You know what, that sounds like fun actually.
/runs off to wiki to find a pic.[/QUOTE]
It all depends on how you view your history. Its the same with engaging a conservative on the conservative merits of Ronald Reagan. For me, the post JFK Bobby Kennedy is a close as I have found to [B]my[/B] ideal candidate (if there is such a thing).
It all depends on how you view your history. Its the same with engaging a conservative on the conservative merits of Ronald Reagan. For me, the post JFK Bobby Kennedy is a close as I have found to [B]my[/B] ideal candidate (if there is such a thing).[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;4328064]Lets get THIS straight. What I think is that both parties are corrupt and have sold their souls to special interests long ago (both corporations and unions). So I have no argument when you present the fact that dems are culpable as well. My frank answer to that is No ****.
Your quote "You accuse the Republicans of being hypocrites on fiscal responsibility because many of them don't support cuts in defense while it's clear [B]many[/B] of them do" is only 100% inaccurate. If you think that most Republicans in congress today support military cuts you are lost....respectfully.
By the way, I appreciate the history lesson on the entire Kennedy family tree. However my avatar represents just one of them. We can argue Robert Kennedy's politics in another thread and in that thread I would welcome the opportunity to highlight Bobby's opinions on military spending.[/QUOTE]
Who said most? You do realize that the only Presidential candidate who is talking substantial cuts in defense is a Republican who currently is the 2nd largest vote getter in the primaries.
Bobby was Jacks inside confidant. There was little done in the Kennedy administration that Bobby wasn't directly involved with. I personally supported him but he was not about ruining our country's defense at all and neither was the Democratic party prior to and during much of the Viet Nam conflict.
To my conservative friends here, I ask you this question; If you are against the unions' political influence, are you going to speak up against this???????
[B]GOP makes run at corporate cash[/B]
By: Robin Bravender and Kenneth P. Vogel
January 13, 2012 06:31 PM EST
Republicans are taking a run at a ban on corporate cash donations to parties and campaigns — a gamble that could pay big financial dividends, but opens them up to attacks from Democrats.
The Republican National Committee filed a brief in a campaign finance case this week, arguing that the RNC and other party committees and candidates should be allowed to take money from corporations, as super PACs can.
Party committees have struggled to stay relevant in the presidential race as super PACs and other outside groups, empowered by 2010 court decisions allowing them to accept unlimited corporate cash, have dominated the airwaves – and the narrative – with millions of dollars in hard-hitting advertisements.
A ban on corporate cash for committees “artificially disadvantages political party and candidate committees by forcing them to rely on aggregating small-dollar donations from individuals while allowing other political actors, such as (super PACs), to receive unlimited corporate donations,” the RNC’s lawyers wrote in a brief filed Tuesday.
Democrats quickly pounced the RNC’s brief as evidence that the GOP is beholden to corporate cash. But, if the courts adopt the RNC’s view, it could help also help the Democratic party committees raise money. And, it comes as operatives on both sides of the aisle are growing increasingly nervous about the marginalizing of their respective party committees as super PACs have become an outsized force in the 2012 presidential campaign.
“I do think that the political parties are concerned about keeping their relevance in the process, and if they can get more money in, they can become more important in the process,” said Harold Ickes, board president of the super PAC Priorities USA Action that supports President Barack Obama.
And, though Democrats have sought the moral high ground when it comes to campaign cash, political operatives say the party wouldn’t mind corporations lining their coffers, either.
“I’m sure Dems off the record would want parity and corporate money because they will get crushed when the story is told [after] this election,” said a former insider at the party’s House committee, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
In fact, though the Democratic National Committee is honoring Obama’s request that it refrain from accepting contributions from political action committees and lobbyists, the DCCC and the party’s Senate committee are not. And prominent Democrats have previously opposed restrictions on party fundraising.
Notably, leading Democratic Party lawyers warned that Democrats could suffer under the 2002 McCain-Feingold law that stripped the ability of party committees to accept unlimited contributions from corporations, unions and individuals. Before McCain-Feingold passed, parties could use such cash for party-building and issue ads, but not for the types of ads super PACs are now airing.
Still, Bob Bauer – who represented the party’s House and Senate committees at the time and went on to serve as Obama’s White House Counsel and top campaign lawyer – cautioned Democratic Senators that the bill could hurt their party committee. And former DNC counsel Joseph Sandler, was also wary of the restrictions on soft money, telling Atlantic Magazine that the law was “a fascist monstrosity.
“I think there was a group of Democratic operatives and party leaders who privately were concerned about the impact of McCain-Feingold on the party institutionally,” said Sandler, who no longer represents the DNC. “Personally, I thought it was ultimately going to result in a weakening of the parties institutionally, as opposed to other outside, less accountable groups and I think that some of my prophecy has come true.”
Ickes said that while some in the party would like the DNC to take corporate contributions, he doesn’t think that would fly under the Obama administration. “Given the position that President Obama has taken against contributions from lobbyists, I suspect that he would not be happy about the DNC taking corporate contributions,” he said.
Conservatives, meanwhile, have accused Democrats of hypocrisy for privately opposing limits on corporate cash, while scoring political points by blasting the GOP for publicly taking that stance.
“I think they’ve always been happy to denounce campaign funding while sponging off Republican litigation efforts that apply to both sides,” said Bradley Smith, a Republican appointee to, and former chairman of, the Federal Election Commission who co-founded the anti-regulation Center for Competitive Politics. But ultimately, he added, “I think that the nature of the donors to each party is such that the Democrats probably feel they have a comparative advantage in a regime that limits funding from corporations to both sides.”
Still, the filing couldn’t come at a worse time for Mitt Romney, whose victory in Tuesday’s New Hampshire presidential primary further established him as the prohibitive favorite for the GOP nomination to take on Obama.
Romney, the former Massachusetts governor and venture capitalist, has been cast as a heartless corporate raider who puts profits over people – not only Democrats, but also by his GOP rivals.
They’ve spent millions on ads hitting him for his years at the helm of the private equity firm Bain Capital, and have taken glee in his struggles to rebut the corporate attacks, widely circulating such inartful Romney comments as “corporations are people, my friend” and “I like being able to fire people who provide services to me.”
The DNC used the RNC’s legal filing to pile on.
The filing is “an unprecedented move that would give more influence, not less, to the special interests,” DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz said in a statement. “Add to this a presidential frontrunner who has said that ‘corporations are people’ and ‘I like being able to fire people who provide services to me,’ and it’s clear who Republicans are standing up for—large corporations, millionaires, and billionaires,” she said.
Obama’s campaign manager, Jim Messina, argued in a video this week that the RNC’s brief shows the GOP isn’t interested in more traditional, human political supporters.
“We have a very different view of how to do politics,” Messina said in the video announcing 4th quarter fundraising totals for Obama’s campaign and the Democratic National Committee. “We think that grassroots campaign start with small donations and volunteer efforts from people all across this country, people like you.”
RNC spokeswoman Kirsten Kukowski shot back Wednesday, “It’s unfortunate the DNC is so willing to waive free speech for any American,” she told POLITICO. “The Republican National Committee will stand up for free speech for all Americans who want to take part in the political process in an open, transparent way.”
The RNC’s argument and stance shared by some Democrats in some ways echo the case made by Romney in recent days when he’s asked about the proliferation of super PAC ads.
He has said he’d prefer such outside groups were rendered obsolete by allowing candidates to accept the same types of cash.
“Campaign finance law has made a mockery of our political campaign season,” Romney told MSNBC morning host Joe Scarborough last month. “We really ought to let campaigns raise the money they need and just get rid of these super PACs.”
To be sure, Romney has benefitted from millions of dollars in brutal ads from a supportive super PAC targeting his rival Newt Gingrich. And he supported the most significant of the 2010 federal court decisions that paved the way for the emergence of super PACs, in a case called Citizens United vs. FEC.
Ironically, the RNC’s brief comes in defense of supporters of Hillary Clinton, who were charged with violating campaign contribution limits by reimbursing their employees for $186,600 in contributions to Clinton’s Democratic campaigns for Senate in 2006 and president in 2008.
“While submitting a brief in support of donors to a Democratic presidential campaign falls out the scope of normal RNC activities, (the corporate contribution ban)’s affront to such donors’ constitutional rights carries major implications for all federal candidates and party committees.,” the RNC wrote. “By virtue of its status as an entity subject to the limits and prohibitions in question and its close connection with candidates for federal office who are subject to the law in question, the RNC has demonstrated its interest in the law at issue in this case.”
The case, which is expected to make its way to the Supreme Court, could have major implications when combined with expected legal challenges to contribution limits, and it has sparked concern among advocates for stricter campaign finance rules.
Richard Hasen, an election law expert and professor at the University of California Irvine, said he was surprised to see the RNC weigh in on the case. But rather than a power struggle between candidates and super PACs, he said the move “fits more generally into what has become the Republican position against campaign finance regulation.”
“What you have now is that there is a partisan divide for the most part on campaign finance law where Republicans have been tending to oppose virtually all campaign finance regulation, including disclosure, and Democrats — especially after Citizens United — have been trumpeting campaign finance laws, even though there are many Democrats who don’t like them. I think it’s in part because it fits in with an anti-corporate message,” Hasen said.
Republicans contend that super PACs aren’t diverting cash away from political parties.
“This is more of an ideological battle,” said former Sen. Norm Coleman (R-Minn.), who helped launch a super PAC aimed at boosting House Republican candidates.
He noted that wealthy individuals and corporate donors aren’t skimping out on giving to party committees since super PACs have emerged. “The folks who give to super PACS — typically that contribution is not cutting into family vacations,” Coleman said.