If the terrible costs are only born by the wrong families, they didn’t happen. Democratic politicians learned plenty from that experience – they learned that they can screw over their nominal constituencies without consequence.

I look forward to Blue America’s explanation of how this means that we should all be giving money to Grijalva, etc because [hand wave]

Because the only common idea that the Democratic Party has as a whole is “We’re not Republicans.”

er, slso, your “Good on Pelosi!” link goes to a story about the police handing out drugs. i think maybe you meant this one?

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/05/03/pelosi-condemns-obamas-continued-raids-on-marijuana-dispensaries/

“the system’s leading campuses could better utilize their market potential to generate new student revenues and offset continuing reductions in state support”

that’s like a Matryoshka doll of wrong.

I’m with you on this, though I don’t know if it has to be – or even should be – “Occupy” as such who does this. but someone ought to. i get that there is value in starting the conversation, that questions alone are worth while. but answers are good too.

i have to say, though, i’d like to hear myself “how campaign finance reform would make elections more democratic” because i’ve never really seen it. but that’s another article…

You could just call it UNIT, but only if they promote Schneiderman to Brigadier.

Moreover, banning corporate personhood has benefits well outside the campaign finance arena.

Like? And what would “banning corporate personhood” mean, exactly?

I thought I was just unable to figure out the Amend2012 website but apparently it’s true – they want you to support an amendment that hasn’t been written. “Please vote for my Amendment to Do All Good Things and No Bad Things!” “Wow, that sounds great! How does that work?” “Well, I’ll figure that part out later – it’s not important now!”

The positive right to vote, though, I think would be much more valuable, in itself and in the side effects of the campaign.

I still haven’t seen good answers to some basic questions when it comes to worrying about campaign spending:

* Why does it cost so much – where does the money go? I assume TV but maybe not.
* Aren’t the people who bear ultimate responsibility the voters? “He spend so much money I has no choice!”
* Why is public financing a better way to go than some kind of revived Fairness Doctrine equal access?

So, speaking of the nomination, are there really no primary challengers in any state for Obama? Are they even holding primaries? Or are there UnSerious people we just don’t hear about from national press?

What really galls me is that one of the Senate co-sponsors is Mr. Net Neutrality, Al Franken. I’m sure he has a rationale of some kind, but from the outside it just doesn’t scan.

Basically, Stallman was right, the very term “intellectual property” is a lie; once you’ve accepted it, the rest is just filling in the details.

“… the IMF will force a rollback of their anti-democratic laws …”

yeah, well, not so much:

Lagarde said that an important precondition would be a willingness to maintain the independence of Hungary’s central bank, which many critics – including its governor – say could be compromised by the introduction of a new central bank law that allows the government to appoint a deputy governor.

democracy, shmemocracy, but hands off our banks!

WALLACE: “But the President is the CEO of the country.”

The fundamental flaw in their thinking in a nutshell.

this also seems to sign everyone up for the repealing-tax-cut == tax-hike equivalence, which doesn’t help the case for undoing the Bush tax cuts. not that any of them are really so interested in that anyway i suppose.

The Courage Campaign [...] “did a lot of focus groups [...] and drafted an initiative”

Uh. That’s something in a nutshell right there.

this is exactly what’s needed. the way to a viable alternative party is to convert incumbents.

you can’t be independent of a party if there’s only one party that’ll talk to you. if there is no other choice, then sweet fate, make one.

We remain one of the only major democracies without public campaign financing.

Are there countries that have public financing that also have unregulated commercial political advertising – where there’s no free air time requirement or such? If there are, I’d like to know more about how that’s worked out.

I’m very skeptical of creating yet another trough directly from the public treasury into the gullets of Comcast et al.

Mr. Obama has signaled that after two years in which his response to the economic crisis and his push for passage of the health care bill defined him to many voters as a big-government liberal, he is seeking to recast himself as a more business-friendly, pragmatic progressive.

this is what’s wrong with “progressive”. the reason it polls well is because it doesn’t mean anything.

if people like this are afraid to be seen as a liberal, then hell yeah i’ll be a liberal.

“The White House sees it as an abuse of the legal system.”

*snicker*

a “bad” economy that is excellent for the nomenklatura and the owners is the desired outcome. a bad economy and being “at war” (with, you know, whoever) together provide excuses and justifications for anything. star chambers? imprisonment without trial at the will of the king? we’re at war! lords seizing the property of their serfs? well, yes, it’s regrettable, but we can’t do anything about it, what with this terrible economy. and so on.