1 - 10 Next
If folks require "purity" and "ideological consistency" and "no wavering" and "no compromise," fine. Find me one President, one Majority Leader of the Senate, and one Speaker of the House who did not cut deals, did not compromise, and did not move to the median position of the group to be led. And don't say Reagan. He was clever and astute and he also moved to the middle ... as Governor of California and as President.
I respect your right to criticize a writing teacher ... and in this instance, the criticism of this prof is well deserved and justified ..... but there is a difference between their (possessive) and there. Just sayin'.
continuing ... Southern Republican support for the Voting Rights Act in the House ... 6.3% (1/16). Southern Democrats ... 22/83 ... 26.5%. In the House, the party breakdown on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 outside the south was: Republicans: 85.6% (137/160) Democrats: 93.0% (146/157) For the Voting Rights Act among non-southern members of the House: Republicans: 93.3% (111/119) Democrats: 99.5% (199/200)
Democrat institution? It was a southern institution. There were the Southern Federalists and the Southern Whigs who supported slavery. It was a southern thing all the way into the 1960s. Though there were not many, southern Republicans were no advocates of civil rights. Look it up. On the vote for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in the House -- 10 Southern Republicans all voted no. (0% compared to 7.5% of Southern Democrats). Neither is stellar, to say the least. On the vote the Voting Rights Act of 1965 in the House -- 16 Southern Republicans and 15 voted no.
To clarify: It did NOT strike limits on how much can go to a specific candidate. These limits remain in force. For 2013, it is $2600 per candidate per election (primary, general, runoff). It DID strike down total spending for individuals. Prior, total donations were capped (where total was to candidates, national parties, state parties, and groups). Total spending is now uncapped. You can give the limit per election to as many House, Senate, and Presidential candidates as you desire. I said below that the "money is speech" argument carries weight under the 1st Amendment. I've read the opinions where this doctrine was articulated by Supreme Court majorities. I also recognize that "a good candidate" is now more closely associated with "big time" fund raising ability. It is competitive and it is Darwinian ... can't raise the requisite money for an office, fall by the wayside ... regardless of values or message. Part of me, though, sees this as "not good." Values and messages may now, by necessity, have to be less tailored to voters and more tailored to donors.
My position on the 2nd Amendment is posted three times here. Seriously, thanks for avoiding name calling. A few barbs are par for the course.
Why not add crucifying? Every jurisdiction has a big hill for all to see.
If you read down, I've stated my position on the 2nd Amendment. Three times.
You make a good argument.
Read below and you will see I responded twice. So, for a third time ... 2nd Amendment .... no on limiting it. Eliminate Death Penalty ... no. A tough one given "Catholic teachings" on life. Limit 1st Amendment .... I'd say that is misstated ... but I accept that "money is speech" .... do note the consequences of empowering an "elite" .... my only qualification on that is accountability and transparency .... any money given to parties, candidates, interest groups (of any kind) should be reported and published ... no anonymity. Much as I favor a no anonymity rule on all web sites ... free speech accompanied by responsibility and accountability for what is said .... use names not "handles"
1 - 10 Next