Tom Anthony: “[With respect to yesterday’s Rolling Stone excerpt] Obama has accomplished a tremendous amount. But he seems to have become an Inverted-Teflon President. He gets no credit for all that he has done.”
☞ Exactly. But that perception may be changing. Summer’s over. Our nation’s future is at stake. People are beginning to focus. Everyone who’s not planning to vote Democrat should at least do his or her due diligence – for the sake of their children – and read the Rolling Stone interview. If, having done so, they conclude Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck, and John Boehner are the more forward-thinking, responsible leaders, then so be it. We can’t get every vote.
John Maclay: “I’ve been reading about how outside groups, buoyed by the Citizens United decision, are flooding Republican congressional candidates with cash even as the Republican National Committee and Republican Congressional Campaign Committee are lagging behind their Democratic counterparts. What can we do to keep subpoena and appropriations power out of John Boehner’s dastardly grip?”
☞ Not sure he’s a dastard, but also not sure many Americans have fully grasped what’s happened here. With a clear minority of the popular vote (even in Florida, but that’s another column) – but a 5-4 decision of the Supreme Court – President Bush took over and moved the Court, via Roberts and Alito, further to the right. That 5-4 Bush v. Gore decision, so weak in its underpinnings that even the majority said it should not set precedent, gave us the war in Iraq, trillions in new debt, and, among other things, the Citizens United decision John refers to (which might more aptly be the “Corporations United” decision). Although it did not lift the ban on corporate contributions to candidates, it allowed nearly unlimited – and undisclosed – corporate influence over our elections. (“While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics,” Justice Stevens concluded his dissent.) That is, Exxon can now form a group called “Concerned Environmentalists For Our Children’s Future” – with no members – and secretly fund it with a billion dollars to attack pro-environment Democrats. Or the Koch brothers could fund “Joe Plumbers For Tax Fairness” with a billion dollars to try to elect Republicans who will keep the Kochs’ tax rates low.
I made up those two Astroturf groups, but here are examples of real ones.
If you think this is wrong – that at the very least, the funders of the ads should be disclosed so it’s clear what interests stand to gain – then that’s one more reason to discount the negative ads attacking Democrats and vote D anyway.
If, on the other hand, you think this is the way things should work, then of course you should vote R. As I say, we can’t get every vote.
The stock is now $7.70. Chris Brown of Aristides Capital, to which I entrust a portion of my meager retirement fund, told us last week he was selling, even though it might certainly go higher. So now I’m out, with $2 worth of KHDHF on its way (one share for every four TTT shares we owned), which I plan to hold: a 20% gain in a month on a low-risk investment. Thanks, Chris.
Quote of the Day
The Bible contains 6 admonishments to homosexuals and 362 to heterosexuals. That doesn't mean that God doesn't love heterosexuals. It's just that they need more supervision.~unknown
Request email delivery