Middle Class Part 20: Campaign Finance continued

“I Love Cash!”: The politicians running for office, who break received campaign finance dollar amount records for every subsequent election should adopt the title of Oscar the Grouch’s theme song, but change one word- “I Love Cash!” The third word, which would be removed from the title, could then be more accurately put to work as a powerfully offensive noun used to summarize the reality of plenty of their campaign platforms- TRASH! Ah, it is only offensive if it isn’t true. Originally, I had meant to use the Oscar the Grouch line on those that gross $200k+ a year and want to act like little Leona Helmsley’s. Helmsley was once accused of saying “only the little people pay taxes,” and willed her dog $12 million. I’ve softened some since the beginning of this jeremiad, so I’ll leave some of the big people alone.

The first amendment to the Constitution of the United States (the first Amendment in the Bill of Rights) [Item A]:
“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 grieveances.”

McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform [Item B]: Courtesy of http://www.opensecrets.org/news/campaignfinance/index.asp the major benefits of having campaign finance reform legislation passed are: 1) a ban on unlimited contributions to the national political parties for “party-building” activities; 2) restrictions on the airing of “issue ads” sponsored by outside groups that “tout or criticize a candidate’s position on an issue;” 3) bans ads “within 60 days of a general election that are paid for by outside groups and identify a particular candidate;” 4) groups spending more than $10k a year on TV ads have to disclose who pays for them. (FYI- McCain is a republican and Feingold is a democrat)

The Unconstituionality of Campaign Finance Reform: I introduced the two previous paragraphs immediately above as items A and B so that I could address them in concert. Those that seem to find the McCain-Feingold bill so reprehensible constitutionally are the republicans, so I’ll deal with the democrats first.
The democrats, so far as I’ve heard, have not come out attacking such a law (McCain-Feingold) on Constitutional grounds (think free speech violations), but I am hardly a Washington insider. The democrats gathered far more financial contributions from hedge-fund companies, lobbyists, unions, and investment companies combined compared to the republicans in the 2004 election cycle and so far in 2008. See the Charles Lewis book I quoted from and the CNN link I included last time. I would contend that the democrats would have more to lose and thus be more vocal in expressing their disgust with campaign finance reform. The democrats often prefer the garden variety mute mandate where they attempt to silence any critics of illegal immigration or violators of the less formal, just as annoying, passive-aggressively-instituted, generally understood, political-correctness decree. Meaning, say anything against a minority, or immigrant, or against someone’s sex, religion, race, sexual preference, question their talent as a singer, comment on the hubris professional athletes habitually display, or dump on an animal kingdom species in a way that offends them and you will rue your European ancestry; you will be brought to account, by a well-meaning liberal whose sense of justice is just a bit askew. (I’d reference a column where I addressed this specifically, but that would pretty much be all of them to date). See my Sneetches and Racism part II column for more particulars.

Lou Dobbs welcomed Janet Murguia, Executive Director for the National Council of La Raza and now associated with a group identified as “We Can Stop the Hate” onto the set of CNN, Lou Dobbs Tonight (February 3, 2008) [www.youtube.com/watch?v=ND76uPySDKY]. She constantly accused him of participating in hate-speech because of his consistent stance against illegal immigration. Murguia’s attitude, that of talking over Dobbs while attempting to demonize him, without relenting (i.e. shutting up) is the type of free speech that is most dangerous- the hypocritical type, squawking at those with a legitimate bone to pick who think that the accusers law-breaking ways are less than angelic. Murguia looked and sounded like the demon, shouting Dobbs down for having the nerve to question her motives and the actions of her group and council. Proponents of illegal immigration want to be able to say anything they want about this country, its laws and its culture, etc., but cannot stand when a well-meaning, experienced journalist, tired of politics as usual, speaks out against something that politicians won’t adequately address, with facts, or instances of immigration policy related failures (see pages 105-189 of Dobbs’ book “War on the Middle Class”). Dobbs consistently ferrets out self-righteous hypocrites and is consistently an enemy of liberals.

Ok, now for the republicans. Noting the complete text of the first amendment, let us consider how many times one might take offense at the more aggregious violations of the republican party concerning the constitutional rights of Americans:

Constitutional Violation (1)- Freedom of/from religion: There is no reason to evoke the name of god following or preceding any speech where the business of the state (the nation) is at hand. Bush concludes about every speech with “God bless America.” The separation of church and state is a principle long ago valued by the founders, but somehow that principle seems to have been forgotten by every state’s constitution into which I looked. Without exception, among the twenty-five state constitutional preambles I reviewed, a sentence similar to this one is included as the text of the preamble introducing each state’s constitution: “WE, THE PEOPLE of the State of New York, grateful to Almighty God for our Freedom, in order to secure its blessings, DO ESTABLISH THIS CONSTITUTION.” Apparently, they really mean it, thus the capitalization. I was a little surprised that of all the state’s I looked into, a sentence of that type preceeded one like this from the Michigan and Texas Constitutions, among others: “All political power is inherent in the people, Government is instituted for their equal benefit, security and protection.” I am surprised because the rights of the individual, divested of allusions to faith, are far preferred in the U.S. Constitution. Section 4 of the Texas Constitution asks that potential government office holders “acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.” I am uncomfortable with the idea that patriotism should be considered synonymous with religious piety.

Middle Class: What does all of that have to do with the middle class? I am showing how powerful people attempt to control and manipulate the rhetoric used in political discussion to subject the people without power to further economic servitude; it is all done because campaign finance legislation and the typical conservative’s charge that it is Unconstitutional is directly related to the economic future of the middle class. Powerful corporations give money to candidates expecting a reciprocated vote in return, there is absolutely no reason to deny this, and no reason to contend that the rich giving money to the political surrogate of their choice benefits the middle class (60-70% of the voting public economically and socially defined). I will further address this in part 21.

Supreme Deity: The founding fathers went out of their way to leave any references to a specific god or general religion out of both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, using more deistic words such as “Divine Providence” and “Nature’s God.” I object to the use of religion in politics today for that reason, though I am far from being deeply offended or wringing my hands in horror at this juxtaposition of civic vs. faith-based verbiage. There is no doubt that conservatives are more authoritarian and demonstrative about their faith. We know that Romney is a Mormon and Huckabee an Evangelical, but both were fairly low-key about the media’s interest in drawing attention to their faith. I make this point because the U.S. Constitution has been subjected to the more prevalent and consistent leanings of the state constitutions as far as god is concerned.

god in civil society: Mindful of the conservative’s charge against campaign finance legislation as being unconstitutional, if conservatives seek to call to account those who check a fellow politician’s level of oligarchy by passing legislation that tempers their candidacy income, then a secularist can object to the ways in which politicians can assign duties, make responsible for protections, and generally assume auspices to an entity they haven’t proven exists. I have no problem with christmas trees, wreaths, or Easter bunnies being allowed into government buildings as symbols of a religious holiday, (those symbols in reality don’t mean what they once did anyway) because this country has an ambiguous relationship with religion and the heritage and culture of this country is undeniably one that wishes to acknowledge a god. We coin money with the words- “In God we trust,” the president takes the oath of office, and we hold witnesses in civil and criminal trials accountable to their consciences, by asking them to swear on the bible, etc (and do so without asking whether their conscience is obligated to consider the contents of that book with reverence). Unfortunately, I haven’t found politicians to be morally irreproachable enough to hide behind the sanctity of a supreme being of goodness, not in name, nor apocryphal deeds that gathered for the “Supreme Judge,” a reputation he has not earned, especially when those politicians set about conducting the business of government. Saying “god bless America” is not a political panacea in the same way that touching one’s forehead with “holy” water is not a religious one.

Constitutional Violation (2)- Unreasonable Searches and Seizure: Two words- Bush and wiretapping. (See the Fourth Amendment).

Constitutional Violation (3)- Declaration of War: Ron Paul brought this up during the California republican primary debate after a heated, ridiculous exchange between McCain and Romney about timing, troop withdrawal, the equivalent of foreign policy semantics, etc. and the nature of the U.S.’s continued involvement in the Iraq war. He said we never should have gone to war and that usually such interaction is only justified when Congress has issued a formal declaration of war. To be honest, I was in support of going into Iraq and removing Hussein, but I was in favor of an offensive, not a war, and given the cost of the war (an estimated $3.5 trillion shared between the Iraq and Afghanistan wars through 2017, see part 12), I’d be in favor of a troop withdrawal and maintaining a military presence in the Middle East. I was pretty sure that the Constitutional right to declare war is in the hands of congress, but just to make sure, I checked . . . yep, there it is in Article 1, Section 8.

Constitutional Violation (4)- Freedom to vote I: Independents can’t vote in some state primaries, in Florida for instance; I get it, people should be a member of a party before being allowed to vote, just as they should be a female to play girl’s hockey, or be a beagle to have a shot at winning the Westminster dog show. At a typical caucus, as I have learned, votes are taken and delegates are chosen after some debate on issues and candidates. Then a delegate nomination and election process begins. I also learned that people voted and then left thinking that the majority they helped assure with their vote, didn't guarantee them the majority of delegates. Apparently, some of the delegates in certain states are not obligated to deliver their state’s support to the candidate the voters in the collective caucus sites selected on a district by district basis, for those states that divvy up the delegates. This makes less sense than being told by a neighbor that his two children are five months apart in age, yet never shared a womb and were conceived in different fertile periods. The XXIVth Amendment, ratified in 1962, gives the people the right to vote in a primary election. Having just read it, I don’t see anything at all about political parties being justified in restricting how, or whether, a citizen might cast their vote. One other thing, Section 2 of the XXIVth Amendment reads: “The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.” And when will that happen?

Freedom to vote II, Super Delegates: I recently learned of something called super delegates, which comprise “20 percent or so of convention voters, usually party insiders, who are not obligated to support the candidate chosen in the primary or caucus.” What?! “or so”? See, Hady Amr’s Star Tribune Opinion Exchange article from February 3, 2008- “Let’s Make it Easy: By the People, for the People.” Somehow, that doesn’t sound so super to me, that sounds like the Aqua-man of super heroes; that must be a bizzaro super hero, come from the land of oligarchy. I may be completely out of touch, but that strikes me as an election process that is earily similar to how parties brought forth candidates in the old days- as Amr indicates in her column and as historically considered by Reicheley in the book I summarized last column. For more on super delegates see www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23147072. In fact, the XXIVth amendment doesn’t say anything about not so “super” delegates, (all 796 of them, constituting 40% of the total delegate count for the democrats) being able to sway an election after record numbers of citizens have cast their votes. The idea of super delegates is disgusting. Think of the participation of super delegates, even the governor of the state of Maryland refers to as people capable of proceeding over a “brokered convention.” He favors Clinton, though “60 percent of Maryland’s Democratic voters cast their ballots for Obama.”

A story last week surfaced that Obama had given $698k to super delegates to Clinton's $205k. An "expert," who appeared on one of the cable news channels was asked whether this would influence a super delegate's vote. He didn't indicate that it would. Then why do it? To borrow the conceit of a popular advertising campaign used by a credit card company: An electric can opener cozy . . . $10, over the counter medication for the problem of post nasal drip . . . $6.50, fiberous snacks for your pet Guinea pig suffering from diptheria . . . $15, deciding to give thousands of dollars to people who could swing the election your way- priceless.

Constitutional Violation (5)- Freedom of the press: Given the G. W. Bush administration- it wouldn’t surprise me if this component of the first amendment had also been violated, but I could find nothing in twenty minutes of Google searching that was . . . fit to print. Not sure if the USA Today Life section article I quoted from in part 12 about the stifling of the scientist’s views that contradicted what the government wanted them to contend on issues as diverse as global warming, stem-cell research and species extinction would be more of a freedom of speech issue or freedom of the press violation. (see Science vs. Politics Gets Down and Dirty- USA Today, August 6, 2007). The article also refers to the story of the “Manhattan Project chief Robert Oppenheimer, who opposed the development of more powerful bombs,” who “lost his security clearance after dramatic congressional hearings in 1954.” Ok, even I admit what I have written is a lot of rhetoric, but I am just demonstrating to what lengths people will go to to defame two conscientious politicians (in John McCain and Russ Feingold) who are just trying to make themselves, their colleagues, and those who turn their colleagues into political puppets for any of thousands of special interest group regimes, more accounatable for the funding of their candidacies. There, I defended a democrat and a republican in one sentence . . . if I could find a way to wash my brain, I would. The conservative republicans speak of McCain-Feingold with horror and speak as if the very thought of a republican working with a democrat to hold a politician accountable for anything is Unconstitutional. Those who sermonize against the issue of campaign finance reform, and consider its supposed Unconstitutionality are like soldiers who enter into a slap-fest up on a hill far away from the firing while all of the real combatants are dying on the battlefield. Don’t we elect politicians for their ability to get the right things done, even some things of which objective conscientious people approve? Some politicians treat that sort of compromise like it is their prom queen befriending the audio-visual nerd at some lame high school party we’ve seen in all kinds of iterations of feel-good teen movies- (“Can’t Buy Me Love” “She’s All That,” etc.)

Huh, if there were a government violation of this aspect of the Constitution, how would I know it?

Constitutional Violation (6)- IRS (the collecting of taxes was written into Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution): Aren’t we supposed to disclose any and all types of income to the federal government so that our earned income can be taxed? I believe it is against the law not to do such a thing, (though I imagine that PLENTY of people don’t report some earned income), with very few exceptions- retirement accounts aren’t considered “earnings” for the purposes of taxation. So, if the IRS can require us to report our earnings, shouldn’t those that give money to produce and deliver advertisements that benefit a candidate in a political race be forced to reveal themselves if they spend more than $10k a year? If they spend a penny aiding a candidate in an election they should be forced to report it—even soft money (an unlimited amount of money directed towards particular candidates for “party-building” activities). If I made a penny that I didn’t report to the federal or state government, they might mind. I believe we should be made aware of a special interest group producing commercials for candidates so we can better track whether the Save the Skunk from Hereditary Rheumatism Foundation was able to buy a politician’s vote. We should hold accountable a politician that supports a West Virginia zoologist who is now in possession of $2.5 million in funding, earmarked from the federal budget, studying the undeniable cross-species erotic attraction of pronghorn for seals. Also it would be nice to know that sometimes we contribute the money, for which we have worked, to “A wise and frugal government, which . . . shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread that it has earned.” – Thomas Jefferson

Constitutional violation (7)- Petition for the redress of grievances: This is a lesser known component of the first amendment that gets lost with all of the attention heaped upon free speech, religion, press, and assembly. A portion of the blame for this violation has to be assumed by the citizens who likely have not formally petitioned the government all that often. I gave money last month to be a member of the non-profit organization Common Cause and I now receive at least two emails a week asking that I email or call my senator, the governor, or district house member to request any number of things- from desiring to push through the Holt bill, which would back up electronic polling booths with paper records, so as not to jeapordize election results. I also requested that state and/or district justices not be able to affiliate themselves in word or deed with a political party, thereby gaining financial support and actively campaigning as challengers or incumbents for state, district, or circuit judicial seats. The reasons for this are fairly obvious, given the nature of this overall subtopic. Common Cause provided me with a ready-made email form which I populated with my own words in both cases. Unfortunately, I don’t think that any more than 10% of the population would feel comfortable, qualified, or interested in lending their name to a good cause. But if they did, I would find it unlikely that the government would actually remedy the ills communicated by the citizens making known the various grievances. As I’ve indicated, with so many different types of people in the country, with so many different desires, all proactive language that would objectively assist the majority gets lost in arguments about semantics, importance valuations, power, timetables, urgency, pride, and esteem of the populace for the people vying to compile a concise, logical grievance, (i.e. show-pony status). The politicians rarely ask for a list of grievances to redress, (though my district house member did send a mailer asking for citizen's opinions on how to spend state budget money), and the people rarely give a list to the politicians and if and when they have, the powers that be in government have been all too capable and all too often interested in circumventing the will of the people. Have I mentioned complicity and plausible deniability yet?

Right to bear arms: A conservative most hates a liberal because conservatives contend that liberals just want to redistribute everyone else’s wealth but their own. That isn’t a lie. Perhaps the reason for that fear could be due in part to the idea that if the conservative’s money is taken from him, he won’t be able to buy guns or financially support the National Rifle Association. The right to keep and bear arms is the second amendment. The reason I included this Constitutional Amendment among these others is not because the conservatives are in violation of it, but because they so strongly support this one, though so much in the intervening years, since its inclusion in the Constitution, has changed. See, the amendment was added back when muskets could fire three bullets a minute. The founding fathers could not have foreseen the possibility of assault rifles that could fire 30, or more, rounds a minute. We regulate everything else, the pasteurization of milk, dietary supplements, the safety of workplace environments, automobile safety standards, the number of terms the president can hold office. Are these all regulations that a conservative is against? The founders probably could not have predicted that political candidates would routinely be spending in excess of $100 million in order to gain political office. This is an apples to apples comparison. If conservatives object to campaign finance reform legislation because they feel it is Unconstitutional, though much of the document is over 200 years old, and the first amendment only states that they have the right to free speech and the fourth amendment, the most beloved by conservatives only states that they can own and carry guns, then can't the same argument be used? See, so their whining about gun control laws is just another negative indicator touchstone of inconsistent, outdated thought on how not to think. It is what the Constitution does not contain that gets us into such ridiculous debates about our freedoms, unfortunately it does not have this in common with the bible. Sometimes I think that if a building were on fire and there were proof that the house contained no innocent potential victims to save and no possible way to save the house or its contents from being destroyed, the conservatives would shut themselves up in it and hope that it would stop burning, so they could have the opportunity to light it on fire again- so combustible is their narrow-minded interpretation of the bible . . . er, the Constitution.

Gun Control supporting arguments: I found three pretty decent locations for information to support this portion of my argument:

1) http://kstp.com/article/stories/s342724.shtml?cat=5 which reveals a case where a person with a stalking conviction was charged with felony possession of a firearm, which is a charge that can land someone in prison for ten years. The offending party in this case is due to get out after a year because the prosecutor dropped the firearm charge because of a loophole in the gun law which allows people to buy antique/collector guns without having to register them. (I would bet my milk money that the prosecuting attorney is a republican, proud of himself for having found a gun ownership loophole, and that the defense attorney was a democrat. Democrats often protect the criminal who fires the weapon that the republicans were all too anxious for him to own. Sounds like another instance of political synthesis with political parties playing oddsmaker- see parts 13 and 14);

2) an old article from May of 1994, proposing a bill to ban the manufacture and importation of 19 weapons thought by democratic senator Chuck Schumer to be assault rifles (B. Drummond Ayres Jr. “In Gun Debate, Gun Definitions Matter.”) In the article, the bill’s proponents contend that “the only way to stop gun deaths is to control criminals.” (The Eyewitness News story I provide above is just one case that proves that controlling criminals is not possible, and it is far from the only case of its kind); Ayres’ story addresses how the technical definition of “assault weapons” is different for proponents and opponents of any bill proposing the ban of firearms. I am a complete tenderfoot on the subject of guns. But a rifle, as distinguished from a hand gun/revolver, that fires one bullet right after the other, while not technically an automatic weapon (which seem to be defined by how many bullets can be fired with one pull of the trigger) is an assault rifle. No private citizen should be allowed to own a gun that can fire more than 6-10 bullets in 30 seconds. If a person desires to own a gun that fires more than 6-10 bullets in that span then they are either a criminal, thinking of becoming a criminal, or are otherwise outside of the protections afforded in the second amendment (right to own a firearm). The argument that a person wants to own a gun, which would be classified as an assault rifle based on principle, should adopt better principles. If a person can’t hit a target or two in self defense with 6-10 bullets, then perhaps some money should be spent on shooting lessons and not so much on guns);

3) I would largely accept most of what the person voicing his opinions on this site- http://hematite.com/dragon/gcviewpoint.html might have to say about the misconceptions of firearms, excepting what I just wrote about gun law loopholes, sentencing guidelines, and loose conservative interpretations of what is and is not an assault rifle. Liberal judges and attorneys err on the side of thinking that they are always defending the innocence of jesus christ, when their client’s actions are often much more reprehensible from a type, frequency, intensity, and malice aforethought standpoint. I liked the line included in the link directly above about blaming the spoon as the reason why Rosie O’Donnell is fat. See, the fair author of the hematite.com column doesn't see a causal connection between guns and death. If guns were banned, surely people would find other weapons of choice is his point- quite so. Unfortunately, in the chicken v. egg debate about what kills people, the gun or the people . . . one question- if there weren’t guns, would guns kill people? I didn't get a 600 on my SATs for nothin'. I don't want to ban any and all guns, or not allow future criminals or some guy who compares himself to Rambo to carry them, just some of them.

Can’t bear those arms: So, if a conservative would favor the right to own and carry a gun that would shock a founding father with its capacity to kill, then the harm in passing legislation that barely alters a politicians right and ability to spend money is . . . ? Remember- no candidate for president has spent less than $7 million and five have spent more than $36 million (through February 11, 2008). Here is that link again: (http://www.cnn.com/election/2008/money/gop.html%20or%20dems.html). Question a conservative on the direction of the country and indicate that things are not quite as great as they could be, nor as bad as they think you think they are, and they will offer up some rather inflammatory, though misguided “facts” about how all is well while the house you saw them set on fire is burning before your eyes. Conservatives are not firemen, they are arsonists. Don’t take that literally. One more thing- they will seek to label you mockingly as a victim. Not so. No victim has ever been so empowered with the truth who has a high-speed internet connection.

Trump card: The Constitution- was written, ratified and business has been conducted under its pronouncements for the benefit of the people firstly, and for how the business of government is to be conducted secondarily. Anyone who wishes to doubt this should read it- see the Bill of Rights. The first seven articles which precede the Bill of Rights, which address the business of government, have rarely been superceded by a Constitutional Amendment in 219 years, and when they have, they haven’t been in a legendary conflict with the twenty-seven amendments that follow. 18 of the 27 amendments are either included for the benefit of the people, and one more, the 16th Amendment, addresses the needs of the one- government, to the detriment of the other- the individual. This is the Amendment that made the collection of taxes Constitutional (though many think this was addressed in Article 1, Section 8). Both parties are over-eager to spend more and more of the taxpayer's money, but I never hear about how it is Unconstitutional to take as much as they do. Nevada’s Constitution Article 1, Section 2 reads: “All political power is inherent in the people[.] Government is instituted for the protection, security and benefit of the people . . .” Should Lincoln’s government of, by, and for the people go completely unheeded? From Ralph Nader’s “The Good Fight" (pg. 33)- “From whom should the Republican and Democratic parties take instruction? From artificial commercial entities that subjugate the public interest, or from human beings who possess inalienable rights?”

Trump card II: Amendments have been added granting blacks and women the right to vote, prohibiting people from drinking alcoholic beverages and later allowing them to, protecting them from illegal searches and seizures, protecting accused criminal perpetrators against excessive bail and fines, even a protection where a person can abstain from incriminating themselves at their own criminal trial. If a politician wants to object against campaign finance reform on the grounds that it is Unconstitutional . . . they are way out of their league. The fortune of individuals and a group of individuals is a protection written into the Constitution which trumps a politician’s right to accept gross amounts of money from potentially questionable sources without the public being made aware of the amount or the contributing special interest group, corporation, or well-compensated individual. The fact that the public might be saved from hearing or seeing mundane advertisements within 60 days of a general election (see #3 of McCain-Feingold above), and that restrictions on “issue ads” are in place which might fall under the heading of #2 above is just a bonus. A Dodo with episodic cluster headaches grows weary of the redundant, nonsensical, cliched, abridged,* inaccurate ads that air incessantly for months prior to an election, and they have been extinct since the late 17th century.
Will-ful disregard: Normally I agree wholeheartedly with George Will, esteemed columnist of the Washington Post. However, he was amiss in his January 20, 2008 offering “This Would be . . . Straight Talk?” when dissecting the merits and errors of John McCain, whom true conservatives can’t stand to support, Will writes: 1) McCain is “quick to denigrate the motives, and hence the characters of those who oppose him;” (if those people are many of his fellow politicians the problem with this would be?) 2) McCain would nominate conservative supreme court justices, and as Will believes, as they are conservative justices, they would “consider his signature achievement constitutionally dubious.” (his signature achievement Will believes is McCain-Feingold); 3) he cites McCain’s feistiness against pharmaceutical companies 4) calls him a moralizer and his thought too simplistic (and possibly for fairly good reason); 5) proposes that conservatives have the political copyright on being the only party able to understand the nuances of government; 6) and nails McCain for working with Joe Lieberman on legislation that would empower congress to “prevent catastrophic global warming.” Lieberman and McCain also coauthored a column which included the phrase “ ‘the debate has ended’ ” concerning global warming’s effect on the planet. (Nonsense, the debate hasn’t ended, so Will is justified in giving McCain hell, and I believe that man is responsible for PLENTY of climate change); Will’s last paragraph is concluded with this sentence 7) “People only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues.” (Quite right, so let us still have debate, and resolve to do nothing about global warming, and nothing about pharmaceutical company practices, the war in Iraq, health care prices, education, or political corruption in regards to “Unconstitutional” campaign finance reform legislation that so far has done little to curb corporate or individual donors, campaign expenditures, or pathetic excuses for issue ads where rhetoric is still the most expensive commodity the voters are expected to buy). I am all for further debate on the important issue of campaign finance reform, for people who oppose it will only look more ignorant, just as the donkey/ass looks more and more like it just won’t fly the further it is removed from the cliff from which it has jumped.

Free speech: Tell a man over 230 years ago that he doesn’t have the right to speak up against an English king that is economically and spiritually bankrupting him, while his neighbors are in shackles for fighting against the crown, and then tell the same man, after ten years of military service, who was successfully reelected to his third term in office that he will not be able to accept unreported funding from certain constituencies, or have proponents slam his competitors two months before an election in a television advertisement, but he can still gather all kinds of unlimited funding from dozens of solicitors, that he is secure in the knowledge that the pension he will collect at retirement will ensure his continued standard of living, and that a year after he leaves office, he can make even more as a lobbyist . . . and ask him what he thinks might be a greater violation against his First Amendment Constitutional right of free speech. Hardly a wash Mr. Will, hardly a wash.

*- if you consider the hubbub of who voted for what when. There are all kinds of reasons someone would vote against a law restricting the presence of a brothel within four blocks of a middle school- one of those reasons would be a rider attached to that bill which proposed a 10% tax increase of the middle class for military funding to fight the influx of ferrets deliberately contracting contagious gout who like to vacation in the District of Columbia. Not all of those issue ads are without their own issues. Let us have the unabridged version of someone’s voting specifics and tendencies.