Memos that have been made public in the investigation of Republican fundraiser Jack Abramoff make clear the tactics these politicians use to manipulate their base and the true contempt they have for their most faithful supporters. This is Tom DeLay's aide Mike Scanlon describing their get out the vote effort on gambling legislation- "....Simply put, we want to bring out the wackos to vote against something and make sure the rest of the public lets the whole thing slip past them. The wackos get their information through the Christian right, Christian radio, mail, the internet and telephone trees." see p. 119 of the pdf see the full story at- http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/11/03/abramoff/index.html
It just proves once again that the republican leadership really has no interest in the average American. Whether it be the christian right, the troops or the middle class. The republican leadership will exploit anyone to advance their agenda. They truly believe that the average American is stupid and lazy and can be manipulated. The emperor truly has no clothes! And more and more people are starting to realize it.
The sad thing is so many people are so easily manipulated by either the right or left without using any critical thinking of their own. Politics have always been who can best manipulate the masses, every successful leader knows that.
Exactly! You hit the nail on the head. The blame doesn't lie with the politicians who 'mislead', it's the ignorant masses being misled. This man is just being truthful more or less, he's telling the Christian right that "you're too easy to manipulate and we know how to rile you up enough to get your support and get elected by throwing a bunch of 'red meat' issues on the table to an angry lion".
Clearly there is enough blame to go all around. You have to blame those who are intentionally misleading don't you? These people have taken oaths and so have sworn duties and accountability. As screwed up as things in this country are, it is amazing how entrenched incumbents are. TERM LIMITS PLEASE! We're not smart enough or diligent enough to vote them out. Both good and bad will replace good and bad so we have no guaranteee that things will get better but can they get worse? At least a regular infusion of new energy and ideas can give us hope.
Completely agree two term for senate 12 years, and make house 4 year terms with a max of three terms.
I totally disagree with term limits. Why should we limit the choices we have? What we need are robust campaign finance laws so that the system is not distorted by huge amounts of money.
"Go back to bed, America, your government has figured out how it all transpired, go back to bed America, your government is in control again. Here, here's American Gladiators. Watch this, shut up, go back to bed America, here is American Gladiators, here is 56 channels of it! Watch these pituitary r****ds bang their ****ing skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom. Here you go America - you are free to do what we tell you! You are free to do what we tell you!" -Bill Hicks
Listen to all the complaining about government affairs. Look up the rate of re-election of incumbents. Now tell me that we really have or make choices. If we have to choose new people every other term... NOW YOU ARE TALKING CHOICE!
Bullard, that's classic. I love Bill Hicks! America lost a genius when he died. Of course the far right is manipulated. Reagan promising a constitutional amendment against abortion then after the election stating that we didn't need one because the 14th amendment would work with right court rulings. Jr promising an amendment against gay marriage, now that the election is over where is that. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
manipulating you base is unique to the republicans??? although the wacko reference -- in writing no less -- is pretty classic.
Common sense, if such a thing exists in politics, is somewhere inbetween the wackos on the left and the wackos on the right.
My politics are pretty far to the left of the Democratic party as a whole, so I don't have any particular loyalty to Democratic politicians. No doubt, plenty of Democrats are corrupt or unethical. As are a certain # of politicians in any part, or certain # of people in any group. But this tendency to respond to every Republican scandal and atrocity with "But the other guys do it too." is lame. The level of corruption and incompetence by this Republican administration and party is of a whole other order. Just one example- the # of lobbyists in D.C. has doubled since 2000. That is a staggering increase. To respond to this with "Lobbying is unique to Republicans?" just obscures a really disturbing development for democracy in the U.S. The Road to Riches Is Called K Street Lobbying Firms Hire More, Pay More, Charge More to Influence Government By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, June 22, 2005; A01 To the great growth industries of America such as health care and home building add one more: influence peddling. The number of registered lobbyists in Washington has more than doubled since 2000 to more than 34,750 while the amount that lobbyists charge their new clients has increased by as much as 100 percent. Only a few other businesses have enjoyed greater prosperity in an otherwise fitful economy. The lobbying boom has been caused by three factors, experts say: rapid growth in government, Republican control of both the White House and Congress, and wide acceptance among corporations that they need to hire professional lobbyists to secure their share of federal benefits. "There's unlimited business out there for us," said Robert L. Livingston, a Republican former chairman of the House Appropriations Committee and now president of a thriving six-year-old lobbying firm. "Companies need lobbying help." Lobbying firms can't hire people fast enough. Starting salaries have risen to about $300,000 a year for the best-connected aides eager to "move downtown" from Capitol Hill or the Bush administration. Once considered a distasteful post-government vocation, big-bucks lobbying is luring nearly half of all lawmakers who return to the private sector when they leave Congress, according to a forthcoming study by Public Citizen's Congress Watch. Political historians don't see these as positive developments for democracy. "We've got a problem here," said Allan Cigler, a political scientist at the University of Kansas. "The growth of lobbying makes even worse than it is already the balance between those with resources and those without resources." In the 1990s, lobbying was largely reactive. Corporations had to fend off proposals that would have restricted them or cost them money. But with pro-business officials running the executive and legislative branches, companies are also hiring well-placed lobbyists to go on the offensive and find ways to profit from the many tax breaks, loosened regulations and other government goodies that increasingly are available. "People in industry are willing to invest money because they see opportunities here," said Patrick J. Griffin, who was President Bill Clinton's top lobbyist and is now in private practice. "They see that they can win things, that there's something to be gained. Washington has become a profit center." Take the example of Hewlett-Packard Co. The California computer maker nearly doubled its budget for contract lobbyists to $734,000 last year and added the elite lobbying firm of Quinn Gillespie & Associates LLC. Its goal was to pass Republican-backed legislation that would allow the company to bring back to the United States at a dramatically lowered tax rate as much as $14.5 billion in profit from foreign subsidiaries. The extra lobbying paid off. The legislation was approved and Hewlett-Packard will save millions of dollars in taxes. "We're trying to take advantage of the fact that Republicans control the House, the Senate and the White House," said John D. Hassell, director of government affairs at Hewlett-Packard. "There is an opportunity here for the business community to make its case and be successful." The Republicans in charge aren't just pro-business, they are also pro-government. Federal outlays increased nearly 30 percent from 2000 to 2004, to $2.29 trillion. And despite the budget deficit, federal spending is set to increase again this year, especially in programs that are prime lobbying targets such as defense, homeland security and medical coverage. In addition, President Bush has signed into law five major tax-cut bills over the past four years. His administration has also curtailed regulation. Over the past five years, the number of new federal regulations has declined by 5 percent, to 4,100, according to Clyde Wayne Crews Jr., a vice president of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. The number of pending regulations that would cost businesses or local governments $100 million or more a year has declined even more, by 14.5 percent to 135 over the period. Companies have had to redouble their lobbying merely to keep track of it all. "Much of lobbying today is watching all the change that's going on in Washington," Cigler said. "Companies need more people just to stay apprised of what regulators are doing." At the same time, government activism has presented potential problems for business. "As government grows, unless you're right there to limit it, it can intrude in just about any industry," Livingston said. "There are agencies that love to do things and acquire new missions. People in industry better have good lobbyists or they're going to get rolled over." But whether it is to protect themselves against harm or to win more benefits, executives and insiders say they have no choice but to hire lobbyists who are deeply rooted in official Washington and its complexities. "Hiring a lobbyist is part of system these days," said Kent Cooper, co-founder of PoliticalMoneyLine, a nonpartisan compiler of lobbying and campaign-funding information. Jonas Neihardt, vice president of federal government affairs for Qualcomm Inc., the San Diego technology company, agreed: "Without professional lobbyists I don't see how a company can monitor everything that's going on or provide the inputs that are necessary to explain why rules and laws have to be changed." The result has been a gold rush on K Street, the lobbyists' boulevard. Quinn Gillespie has added at least 16 clients and six professionals since its co-founder, Edward W. Gillespie, announced last November that he was returning after a stint as chairman of the Republican National Committee. Barbour Griffith & Rogers LLC, another lobbying firm, increased the number of lobbyists to 15, from eight in 2003. The owner of a large lobbying shop said that five years ago he could hire veteran Capitol Hill staffers for $200,000 a year or less. Now the going rate is closer to $300,000 a year and the most-sought-after aides can expect even more. In 2002, Susan B. Hirschmann, chief of staff to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.), had so many lobbying offers that she enlisted Robert B. Barnett, the attorney for Bill Clinton and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), to receive and filter them. For retiring members of Congress and senior administration aides, the bidding from lobbying firms and trade associations can get even more fevered. Well-regarded top officials are in high demand and lately have commanded employment packages worth upward of $2 million a year. Marc F. Racicot, a former Montana governor who chaired the Republican National Committee, will soon collect an annual salary of $1 million-plus as president of the American Insurance Association. The fees that lobbyists charge clients have also risen substantially. Retainers that had been $10,000 to $15,000 a month for new corporate clients before President Bush took office now are $20,000 to $25,000 a month or more, lobbyists say. All-Republican lobbying firms have boosted their rates the most. Fierce, Isakowitz & Blalock and the Federalist Group report that at the end of the Clinton administration, $20,000 a month was considered high. Now, they say, retainers of $25,000 to $40,000 a month are customary for new corporate clients, depending on how much work they do. Such fee inflation is widespread, even by newcomers. Venn Strategies LLC, a bipartisan lobbying firm that opened in 2001, has doubled its retainer for new clients. "When we first started, most of them came in at $7,500 a month or $10,000 a month," said Stephanie E. Silverman, a principal in the firm. "Now retainers are more in the $15,000- and $25,000-a-month range." Corporate clients accept the extra cost as the price of success in Washington. At the turn of the year, the American Ambulance Association decided to step up its lobbying and switched to Patton Boggs LLP, the Capitol Hill powerhouse, from a smaller lobbying shop across town. In the process it boosted its lobbying budget by about a third, to more than $300,000 a year. "It is essential we have a very strong presence," said Robert L. Garner, president of the association. "It's pricey, but it's the cost of doing business in the federal environment." © 2005 The Washington Post Company http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/21/AR2005062101632_pf.html
Just as I go to a Baptist church and really despise organized religion I consider myself Republican and despise the "politics" of politics. I'm not loyal to the Republican party as my votes are cast soley on my religious and moral beliefs, and I have no problem voting against a republican if they stand for things that my beliefs deem unacceptable. With that said I have no problem voting for a democrat who does a good job and "has no opinion or say" on controversial subjects, such as Bill White. He has done a great job and I would vote for him in a heartbeat even if he was anti-death penalty and pro-choice, because his views on those subjects play no role in the decision making that matters on those subjects.
Hey Giff....look to your political left...that's probably me. My point was simply in response to those who suggested that manipulating the base was a uniquely republican tactic. Pirc made the same point...probably better than i did. I didn't read the original post as a commentary on lobbying overall. That's huge. If you're concerned about lobbying -- i think that suggesting this is primarily a republican problem obscures the issue. We can (and have) filled several threads on the problems with the the current admin. But if we're saying -- yeah---that's what the republicans do to the right -- we should acknowledge that it's also what other political parties do -- that's not lame. It just is. And i'm not even suggesting playing to your base or to how things will play out is corrupt or unethical. (well...maybe unethical). You DO stratigize how certain positions will play amongst different groups. That's just the way it is. If you're not aware of these things -- you simply don't win the vote. But I do like the Wacko reference. It's pretty hard to spin that one. That's the sort of reference you may make over beers. Their votes are just as valuable as anyone elses. But calling 'em wacko's in print....that's just too funny.
I can't think of any reason at all why ANYONE would be against Term limits. Isn't that part of the reason why Republicans took COngress in '94?