Since, as you said, you haven't been here from the beginning, here are the two columns written by the lovely Mrs. Chris Weigant, as guest columns on this site:

"Why I Decided To Become An American"

and

"Celebrating My First Year As An American"

Enjoy!

-CW

Um, but that sort of campaign finance reform is a signature issue of the Left. Other than the "maverick" McCain (who disappeared a few years ago, I must point out), this sort of thing is always proposed from the left of the aisle, not the right. I'd be for it, myself. Get the money out of politics, I fully agree with that goal. Which is why I even agreed with the Tea Partiers on the earmarks thing.

David [7] -

Didn't we all agree on "Weigantians"? Now I'm confused...

Heh.

:-)

Americulchie [9] -

Ah, see, now there's the crux of the problem: the people who have to vote new campaign finance laws into effect are the very same people who benefit from the status quo -- meaning "here's a lance, there's a windmill," as you so aptly point out. Sigh.

Michale [12] -

"Beer For My Horse"?!? OK, you've just GOT to post a link to that. Seriously.

Americulchie [15] -

I spent the 1980s without a TV, and with a "Kill Your Television" bumpersticker on my car. I can relate. And curmudgeons are ALWAYS welcome here. My secret dream job is to take over for Andy Rooney -- five minutes a week bitching about something that is a burr under my ass? Heaven. Heh.

[18] -

"I say... I say, boy... you're doin' that all wrong!"

Heh.

As for "culchie" etymology, I would point any non-Irish person to Googling either "Kerryman jokes" or "culchie jokes" to see what Dubliners think of folks from the countryside. With absolutely no offense intended, of course. To their credit, culchies are the ones who can lead you to leprechauns. As my brother-in-law once told me: "You want to see a leprechaun? Go up into the mountains and drink a bunch of culchie poteen, and ye'll see leprechauns..."

But then he may have been pulling my leg. It's hard to tell, at times, with the Irish. Which is half the fun. Heh.

[20] -

... which I never would have been able to do without marrying off a fine redheaded Irish cailin...

:-)

-CW

Michale bless your heart I never thought you would respond to that one.Well Done Lad your post count is growing like a Florida wildfire.People do often ask where my moniker came from;one of the reasons I am here is Chris responded to one of my comments and knew where it came from;that impressed me no end Voila here I am.

I thought your name was a kewl blending of the word American and Culture... :D

Michale

12

("That's a joke, son! Don't 'ya get. I swear, boy's about as sharp as a sack of wet mice!" - Foghorn Leghorn)

Ok. So I can't take it anymore. I have to ask. What's the etymology behind your sobriquet?

(And yes, it is indeed a big-worded day.)

Michale you definitely have the advantage on the telly front.I rarely have owned a T.V. in the last 20 years as I find most of insipid or annoying.I find almost everything in popular culture insipid and annoying I am beginning to think that I have crossed over into the curmudgeon crowd prematurely.

hehehehehehehe

The best Don Quixote was played by Dr Sam Beckett in Quantum Leap.. :D

Michale.....

11

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxRgNnue-zk

I got 56 seconds into it before I had to puke.. :D

Not so much the subject matter, that was nauseating enough, but it done to RAP...

Imagine how you would react if you heard someone singing the praises of FoxNews to the tune of "BEER FOR MY HORSE"

Same concept.. :D

Michale.....

10

I find it hard to disagree with Michale on this one as well. Even as much as I would like to :) And you know I'm kidding, Michale. I've found over the years we have more common ground than I ever would have thought.

I do think there's been a push to up the priority of campaign finance reform recently. I think the Dems made a calculation after the 2008 election to hold off on any campaign finance reform to use their political capital elsewheres. In retrospect, it might have been the thing they should have gone after most.

But both of you are right. The bottom line is that pols have figured out that money wins elections. And until this changes or there's something in place to fight it, they'll keep chasing the money.

It's one of the reasons I thought this interview with Bruce was excellent. Here's an example of a guy who was outspent and still won. And he won not by trying to please everyone. He won by standing up for his votes.

-David

p.s. Love or hate?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxRgNnue-zk

Count me as one of those who just don't care..

The obscene amounts of money given to political candidates is the root of the problem.

Get rid of that and you'll see a government that is more representative of the people instead of the corporations..

And, yes. This IS one of those issues that is not a Right vs Left issue.. Because Democrats are as guilty of this as Republicans. Taking in secret donations, avoiding transparency, doing things with back-room deals...

Michale.....

The problem is that no one who is in either house in Congress is going to get serious about killing the goose that lays the golden egg;in this 24/7 news cycle it won't take much to distract people from this issue.It is obvious to me that our representatives know most voters have a very short attention span and don't really think of how money has perverted the process.I have talked to people who don't really understand the difference between "soft",and "hard" money;nor do they care.I find myself four square behind Michale on this one;bit it looks to me we are talking about attempting to tilt a windmill.

Eliminate it..

Eliminate ALL contributions, period..

NO ONE gets to contribute ANYTHING to a politician.

That would solve ALL the problems..

Michale.....

Ok, I'm with 'ya Americulchie.

According to the Internet, the first efforts at campaign finance reform date back to 1867. This is just interesting.

For starters, ANY candidate who wants to run for political office gets a set amount from the Government at the start of the campaign and that is all they get. No more fund-raisers, no more back-room deals, no more corporate influence.

You're talking about the "hard money". Direct contributions to political candidates. McCain-Feingold still has a lot of influence when it comes to this. Contributions are limited by individual donors. I don't see this as the big issue. But your proposal, Michale, is one way to equalize the hard money.

So what about the "soft money"?

What about the contributions to national political parties? What about the money going to organizations who want to influence elections?

Under your plan, would these organizations get a similar government grant?

(Of course this is all theoretical by the way. No way this would ever happen. But it's a good discussion.)

-David

p.s. Speaking of fundraisers. Here's a gentle reminder to donate to CW during the fall fund drive. I'm matching donations up until the first $250. And Michale has pledged to donate for every comment he makes during the holidays.

Click on the donate button in the upper right and support our own CW! Weigantites unite!

$86 million buys you an awful lot of anti-health care propaganda.

So, what you are saying is that anything that speaks against CrapCare is "propaganda"??

Isn't it just even SLIGHTLY possible that the 86 million simply told people the facts about how bad CrapCare is??

Why is it always only "propaganda"??

Michale.....

it has nothing to do with left or right, democrat or republican.

It has everything to do with Left and Right, insofar as the political games are concerned.

This current screaming and yelling about "secret donors" is a perfect example..

Where was all the screaming from the Left when Obama and the Dems were raking in millions and millions of dollars from anonymous and traceless debit cards??

The actual problem of secret donors is an us vs corporations issue, true.

But the whining and crying about secret donors in the here and now is definitely a Right vs Left issue...

David,

BTW, Michale. I don't think the Obama campaign donors are much of a secret.

You DO realize that millions and millions of dollars flowed into the Obama campaign from trace-less debit cards, right??

It's funny how the Left screams about anonymous donors from the Right, yet doesn't lose an iota of sleep over the anonymous donors that gave Dems a complete lock on Congress and the White House..

I am with Americulchie. Let's do a total overhaul of campaign finance.

For starters, ANY candidate who wants to run for political office gets a set amount from the Government at the start of the campaign and that is all they get. No more fund-raisers, no more back-room deals, no more corporate influence..

In one fell swoop, ALL of the problems caused by corporate ownership of politicians and our government disappear..

Am I the only one who sees the logic in my plan??

Michale.....

you're going to get attacked for the votes you take, so there's no point trying to run away from them when campaign season rolls around. If you're not willing to stand up and explain why you voted for a certain bill, you shouldn't vote for that bill in the first place.

BTW- Here's one of the secret donors:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-17/insurers-gave-u-s-chamber-86-million-used-to-oppose-obama-s-health-law.html

$86 million buys you an awful lot of anti-health care propaganda.

Cheers
David

p.s. BTW, Michale. I don't think the Obama campaign donors are much of a secret. For example, several Wall St. firm PACs including Goldman, J.P. Morgan and Citigroup made some of the biggest contributions. Do a quick Internet search and you can come up with them pretty quickly. I think things have been different though since the Citizens United decision.

it has nothing to do with left or right, democrat or republican. the secret donors aren't so secret, they're corporate and banking interests. any politician who won't play ball gets hammered with secretly funded smear campaigns against them, regardless of party.

http://usawatchdog.com/democrats-vs-republicans-its-you-vs-corporations/

I submit that the only difference is that in 2010 it was GOP secret donors and in 2008 it was DP secret donors...

"Why did these secret donors spend this much money, and why are they so afraid to tell us who they are?"

Same reason why all the secret money poured into the Obama campaign and no one would tell us (the American people) who they were...

When Democrats start identifying each and every one of their secret donors, then I am sure that the GOP will follow suit. :D

Michale.....