Yes, there was a column yesterday. I just couldn’t wait another day to say something about Joe Scarborough, he made me so angry. (Before the last election, he promulgated the nonsense about job creators, flying in the face of both 70 years of real-world experience and common sense. Friday, he was misleading his viewers about private equity.) There is much to recommend Scarborough and “Morning Joe,” but boy can he get it wrong.


When socialist Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont and disgraced Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff agree on something, it must have broad political appeal. Add in former Chief Justice William Rehnquist, a Nixon appointee, who scoffed at the notion that corporations are “people” – and foresaw the dangerous consequences that the current Court has so destructively amplified with Citizens United – and I think there just might be room here for this thing to catch on. Namely, a Constitutional amendment that overturns Citizens United.

“If you are concerned about the collapse of the middle class,” begins Senator Bernie Sanders in this really important appearance on “UP, with Chris Hayes” . . . “if you are wondering why the United States is the only country in the industrialized world not to have a national health care program, if you’re asking yourself why we pay the highest price in the world for prescription drugs or why we spend more money on the military than all the rest of the word combined, you are talking about campaign finance . . .

And he goes on from there.

In the same show, a related point is made: so long as there are SuperPACs, a corporate lobbyist can go into a Representative’s or Senator’s office, shut the door, and say: “Listen, Senator. If you vote against us, we will throw $10 million into negative ads kicking you out of office.” Not a dime has changed hands. Not a dime has to be reported. And yet, because Citizens United has made the threat credible, the money is just as corrupting as if it had been paid.

So much is at stake with this. Watch.


Really! Not that they will necessarily ever taste better printed than baked, but I’m telling you: the future is awfully bright if we can all just find a way to get along.


Bill Spencer: “That Jerusalem Post link Friday was right on the mark, although your earlier quote from Dave Barry said it more succinctly (‘I was against gay marriage until I realized I didn’t have to get one.’) But in my estimation, most of the anxiety and anger over this topic stem from the fact that the two sides are talking in cross-purposes about two different notions of marriage. Civil marriage is not necessarily the same thing as Holy Matrimony as the Catholic and other churches define it. They have different rules and are administered by different authorities. It would be so much easier on everyone if these two concepts could be discussed using unique terms to describe them. I know about the problem with legalese in thousands of laws, but couldn’t we find a way to get around that?”

☞ I think the best we can do is have these two unique terms:

CIVIL MARRIAGE – open to everyone.
SACRED MARRIAGE – closed to anyone a religion wants to discriminate against.


Comments are closed.