Bachman goes Boom!

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Fern
-snip-

How do you feel about the NRCC and such then?

Don't really care for them, or others like them.

I suppose in some circumstances they do good. E.g., when you have an entrenched politician getting money from people/companies outside their district these type orgs can help level the playing field. Still, I prefer outside influences not be involved in local elections.

Fern

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Fern
Still, I prefer outside influences not be involved in local elections.

I don't consider Congressmen and Senators to be "local" elections. Mayors, state legislators, local judges, governors, yes, but when your representative goes to Washington and gets a vote that directly effects the policies of the entire country, then I'm not opposed to intervention in the form of outside funding.

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Fern
Still, I prefer outside influences not be involved in local elections.

I don't consider Congressmen and Senators to be "local" elections. Mayors, state legislators, local judges, governors, yes, but when your representative goes to Washington and gets a vote that directly effects the policies of the entire country, then I'm not opposed to intervention in the form of outside funding.

Exactly. The senator from across the country has every bit as much impact on national policy as the senator from my home state. I don't get to select that senator, but I certainly am interested in the results of the race.

 

[ohnoes]

Was just watching hardball, and they said that the RNC has pulled their $ from bachman's campaign... bloops?

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Fern
Still, I prefer outside influences not be involved in local elections.

I don't consider Congressmen and Senators to be "local" elections. Mayors, state legislators, local judges, governors, yes, but when your representative goes to Washington and gets a vote that directly effects the policies of the entire country, then I'm not opposed to intervention in the form of outside funding.

House members represent a pretty small geopgraphical area in most places. They are local represenatives sent to DC to represent their (limited) area. (Senators represent half of a state)

House member, particularly, are supposed to be attuned to the sentiments of their constituents. How can outside influences be helpful to this purpose?

Yes, their vote can affect policies of the entire nation, but don't their constituents have the right for that influence to represent their views?

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Fern
Still, I prefer outside influences not be involved in local elections.

I don't consider Congressmen and Senators to be "local" elections. Mayors, state legislators, local judges, governors, yes, but when your representative goes to Washington and gets a vote that directly effects the policies of the entire country, then I'm not opposed to intervention in the form of outside funding.

House members represent a pretty small geopgraphical area in most places. They are local represenatives sent to DC to represent their (limited) area. (Senators represent half of a state)

House member, particularly, are supposed to be attuned to the sentiments of their constituents. How can outside influences be helpful to this purpose?

Yes, their vote can affect policies of the entire nation, but don't their constituents have the right for that influence to represent their views?

Fern

Well they do, as only residents of their district can vote for or against them. Money spent on advertising or whatever might change the views of the voters in their district, but so what? If their views are changed, their views are changed.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Fern
Still, I prefer outside influences not be involved in local elections.

I don't consider Congressmen and Senators to be "local" elections. Mayors, state legislators, local judges, governors, yes, but when your representative goes to Washington and gets a vote that directly effects the policies of the entire country, then I'm not opposed to intervention in the form of outside funding.

House members represent a pretty small geopgraphical area in most places. They are local represenatives sent to DC to represent their (limited) area. (Senators represent half of a state)

House member, particularly, are supposed to be attuned to the sentiments of their constituents. How can outside influences be helpful to this purpose?

Yes, their vote can affect policies of the entire nation, but don't their constituents have the right for that influence to represent their views?

Fern

Well they do, as only residents of their district can vote for or against them. Money spent on advertising or whatever might change the views of the voters in their district, but so what? If their views are changed, their views are changed.

Uhh Right. That all sounds good assuming campaign advertising is never misleading and is all 100% accurate issue-based. But we know better, don't we?

A ton of it is gonna be negative smear stuff that if repeated enough (meaning those extra $s are very important) will be believed even if not true.

Fern

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern

Uhh Right. That all sounds good assuming campaign advertising is never misleading and is all 100% accurate issue-based. But we know better, don't we?

A ton of it is gonna be negative smear stuff that if repeated enough (meaning those extra $s are very important) will be believed even if not true.

Fern

But what's the difference between dishonestly changing the mind of someone in your own district and dishonestly changing the mind of someone in another district? What bad about those is the smearing, not what zip code it's taking place in. Does it bother you that a lot of the money raised by incumbent House members comes from interest groups outside their district?

The true test of representation is who gets to choose the representative and only people in that district do. If someone wants to run an ad and try to change their mind, who cares? In the end they still chose who they want.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Fern
Still, I prefer outside influences not be involved in local elections.

I don't consider Congressmen and Senators to be "local" elections. Mayors, state legislators, local judges, governors, yes, but when your representative goes to Washington and gets a vote that directly effects the policies of the entire country, then I'm not opposed to intervention in the form of outside funding.

House members represent a pretty small geopgraphical area in most places. They are local represenatives sent to DC to represent their (limited) area. (Senators represent half of a state)

House member, particularly, are supposed to be attuned to the sentiments of their constituents. How can outside influences be helpful to this purpose?

Yes, their vote can affect policies of the entire nation, but don't their constituents have the right for that influence to represent their views?

Fern

Well they do, as only residents of their district can vote for or against them. Money spent on advertising or whatever might change the views of the voters in their district, but so what? If their views are changed, their views are changed.

Uhh Right. That all sounds good assuming campaign advertising is never misleading and is all 100% accurate issue-based. But we know better, don't we?

A ton of it is gonna be negative smear stuff that if repeated enough (meaning those extra $s are very important) will be believed even if not true.

Fern

A congressperson's constituents have the right to vote for whoever they like, but I think it's unreasonable to demand that nobody try to change their mind. If they are easily fooled by misleading ads, then that's THEIR problem.

 

[Fern]

You two guys (Rains and Eski) sound like you are arguing for foriegn donations to Presidential campaigns etc, which I believe is illegal. I suppose you don't like that either?

Fern

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Fern
You two guys (Rains and Eski) sound like you are arguing for foriegn donations to Presidential campaigns etc, which I believe is illegal. I suppose you don't like that either?

Fern

I don't support that, for a reason you already stated. I may not live in Bachmann's district, but what she does in Congress does affect me. That doesn't mean I should get a vote, since I get one of those for MY Congressional representative, but I think it's reasonable to say that I have an honest interest in her election (or not).

But while we're on the topic of what we do or do not support, YOU sound like you're arguing against all out of district donations or any form of campaign help. Surely you don't think THIS is the only race where this is going on, the only reason it's a little lopsided is because she's a jackass and pissed off every liberal in the country.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Fern
You two guys (Rains and Eski) sound like you are arguing for foriegn donations to Presidential campaigns etc, which I believe is illegal. I suppose you don't like that either?

Fern

The reason why foreign donations are bad is because giving large influence over our elections to foreign powers is a national security threat. That has nothing to do with this situation here.

 

[conehead433]

Originally posted by: Descartes
It wasn't the brightest thing in the world to go against Chris Matthews on this subject, but I also agree that Matthews was trying far too hard to get her to equate liberals with anti-American sentiments. He just didn't present a very good argument.

So, as far as I can tell, she's just regurgitating the same Republican talking about that everyone else is.

She wouldn't be in this mess if she hadn't specifically stated on Hardball that she thought Obama was anti-American. Who cares if Matthews goaded her into actually naming anyone specifically, she was stupid enough to do it and name Obama. Her claiming any member of Congress being anti-American was a ridiculous charge at best.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: ohnoes
Was just watching hardball, and they said that the RNC has pulled their $ from bachman's campaign... bloops?

Whoa! Take a look at her Wikipedia article which discusses the controversy. It seemed like Republican Senator Norm Coleman (in a competitive race with Al Franken) tried to distance himself from her and her comments, saying that he would not label Obama's views as being anti-American.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...mpaign_for_re-election

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: ohnoes
Was just watching hardball, and they said that the RNC has pulled their $ from bachman's campaign... bloops?

I'm guessing they find her too liberal.

 

[jonks]

So she goes on O'Reilly and doubles down:

http://blogs.citypages.com/blo...10/bachmann_gets_m.php

"That's not what I said. The implication from Chris Matthews, his twisting and spin...was that I said that Barack Obama is Anti-American....I didn't say that but I do question those views."

Ok, well let's see what she said on Hardball:

CM: Do you believe Barack Obama may have anti-american views?
MB: Absolutely, I'm very concerned he may have anti-american views.

Nice try at a lie. Keep saying you never said it though. Good luck with that. National GOP has already pulled it's advertising funding for her. Bye bye missy.

Incumbent MN Senator Norm Coleman ran for the hills. In an interview with a local Minnesota TV station, Coleman ? who is now in a close race with comedian Al Franken - distanced himself from Bachmann's comments.

"I would not, uh, label his views as anti-American," Coleman said. "I think clearly folks can look at past relationships and make some decisions about that but in the end I have a different respective on that.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: jonks
So she goes on O'Reilly and doubles down:

http://blogs.citypages.com/blo...10/bachmann_gets_m.php

"That's not what I said. The implication from Chris Matthews, his twisting and spin...was that I said that Barack Obama is Anti-American....I didn't say that but I do question those views."

Ok, well let's see what she said on Hardball:

CM: Do you believe Barack Obama may have anti-american views?
MB: Absolutely, I'm very concerned he may have anti-american views.

-snip-

The statement: Barack Obama is Anti-American != I'm concerned he may have anti American views.

One is about him, the other his views

One is absolute, the other a possibility (I'm sure there are better terms, but I'm not a grammer nazi and don't know 'em)

Come on, I thought Dems could handle nuance

Every time I see this "anti American" or "un American" stuff I think it cries out for a definition. Matthews annoyed me the other night when he raised the issue of what those terms mean and then said we could never know. Oh really? Chris, why not just ask the person making the comment? How freakin hard is that>

Fern

 

[chess9]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: jonks
So she goes on O'Reilly and doubles down:

http://blogs.citypages.com/blo...10/bachmann_gets_m.php

"That's not what I said. The implication from Chris Matthews, his twisting and spin...was that I said that Barack Obama is Anti-American....I didn't say that but I do question those views."

Ok, well let's see what she said on Hardball:

CM: Do you believe Barack Obama may have anti-american views?
MB: Absolutely, I'm very concerned he may have anti-american views.

-snip-

The statement: Barack Obama is Anti-American != I'm concerned he may[/] have anti American views.

One is about him, the other his views

One is absolute, the other a possibility (I'm sure there are better terms, but I'm not a grammer nazi and don't know 'em)

Come on, I thought Dems could handle nuance

Every time I see this "anti American" or "un American" stuff I think it cries out for a definition. Matthews annoyed me the other night when he raised the issue of what those terms mean and then said we could never know. Oh really? Chris, why not just ask the person making the comment? How freakin hard is that>

Fern

What does the word "Absolutely...." mean? "Oh, no, not me"? LOL. Nice try, Fern, but it's you that doesn't understand plain English. Nuance is not something that woman does.

-Robert