We can do better
I care about policy. I want my government to be both fair and representative of the people it governs. In recent years, I’ve become disgusted with the political system in Maine, and in the nation. Party gridlock puts us all at risk of bankruptcy and having to be subjected to policy that was formed based on favor-swapping and sleazy handshakes.
I care about policy, but I don’t like politics, at least not today’s politics.
Last year, I joined a group of Mainers who, like me, are fed up with extremists getting their way in policy while moderate voices are shut out. We gathered together to put our time and money into an effort to support candidates for the Legislature that have a commitment to working collaboratively with members of other parties. We don’t want the extremists to get all the press, so we’re raising money to promote the people who aren’t playing on fear and stereotypes to get press.
Some of us are Republicans, some are Democrats, some Green, some unenrolled, etc. All of us want to see a change in the way things are done in Augusta. With a fairly small amount of money, we can support moderate candidates in races around the state by helping them get airtime, campaign materials and media coverage.
Please join us. Every little bit helps. Visit www.onemaine.com and help us change the way politics is done in Maine.
Sarah Morehead
Orono
Reboot Congress
As we all endure the next 10 months of political agony with politicians, pundits and other fools proliferating the press with nonsense, let’s make it easy and vote for no incumbent. If you are not part of the solution to our economic morass, you should no longer be part of the pathetic Congress that created this mess.
Using the words of Sen. Olympia Snowe, who voted not to even debate the jobs bill, a constant puppet of the Republican right, “I’ve never seen a worse Congress in my whole political life,” let’s all heed her words and start over.
We can begin by sending a new team of legislators to Congress, people of vision, people with a “can-do” spirit, four who will make decisions on what is best for the people, not for their re-election.
William Shuttleworth
Camden
Grover looms large
Who is Grover Norquist and what is his appeal to our elected representatives in Washington and Augusta? I did a quick Google search and found that all but six Republican representatives and all but seven Republican senators in Congress have signed his pledge. Three Democrats, two in the House and one in the Senate, also have signed the pledge. In the Maine Legislature, 30 representatives and five senators have signed the pledge.
Are all these politicians seers? Can they see the future and will they have to hesitate in a time of need to check with Grover Norquist for his permission to perform the duties that they were elected for?
Exactly where in the tree of government and what elected or appointed seat does Grover Norquist hold?
I for one will not vote for any politician who makes a commitment to anyone but the people who elected him and all the people of his district.
Thomas Bonner
Alexander
Photo distasteful
Your publication of the photo taken by Kevin Bennett and used in your story regarding the 7-year-old boy who burned to death in a house fire in Corinth this weekend was tragic and irresponsible. The parents were shown sitting and laying on the ground in total despair while being consoled by the firefighters immediately after being told their son had in fact died in the fire.
I find it absolutely despicable that you would choose to run that picture of these parents who have just experienced the most tragic moment of their lives.
Mr. Bennett and the photo editor exhibited extreme callousness in taking and choosing this photo. No, I don’t know the victims of the fire or anyone else involved in this story, but I do know an inappropriate photo and a total lack of human decency when I see it.
Kevin Gurall
Springfield
Time to reprioritize
Years ago, people missing arms or legs, who were blind or deaf, etc., didn’t want to be considered disabled. Many worked, had families and led productive lives. Many still do the same today because they are too proud to accept assistance or have too much self-esteem and want to do things for themselves.
Today many consider pregnancy, drug use, alcoholism, etc., as disabilities and are out to get as many benefits and freebies as they are legally, or illegally, entitled. They think they are due free housing, food, medical care and many other benefits. It would never enter their mind to get a job or try to be self-sufficient. All these benefits come from those who are working hard (not the government).
Is society better with the first group or the second? Perhaps we should reprioritize our assistance programs so we help those who can’t help themselves rather than those who won’t.
Richard Peer
Hampden
Protect North Woods
It’s difficult to understand how Department of Conservation Commissioner Bill Beardsley could possibly “not see how (LD 1798’s) adoption would weaken oversight” of land use in Maine’s North Woods, as he told the Bangor Daily News last week (“LURC battle under way,” Feb. 9).
Last Thursday, Environment Maine helped 17,000 Mainers voice their concerns that the bill would do just that, threatening the future of Maine’s woods. The bill, LD 1798, rolls back the Land Use Regulation Commission’s protections by undermining its ability to make unbiased decisions, eliminating criteria on which the commission makes its decisions, and allowing counties to “drop out” of LURC’s jurisdiction, effectively eliminating current protections over time. The messages came from people in all 151 House districts, showing that citizens from every part of our state and all walks of life want legislators to maintain LURC’S protections for the North Woods.
Maine’s North Woods are at the heart of our natural heritage and define our state. They’re home to some of the most beautiful and treasured places in Maine – from the Rangeley Lakes to Mount Katahdin – and are where generations of Mainers have learned to love the outdoors. Once we allow it to be tarnished by reckless development, it’ll be gone forever. 17,000 Mainers agree: we must protect the North Woods now.
Garrett Conover
North Woods Ways
Willimantic
SARAH,
Sounds like your promoting a fruit salad. For me I’ll stand by my Christian-Conservative convictions. Compromise is simply a sign of weakness. How about we elect only Christian-Conservatives and we can solve your problem at the same time. All that arguing and wasted energy won’t exist anymore, and we can save the country while we’re at it.
WILLIAM,
NOT! It is the liberal agenda that created this mess, and we have passed the point of no return.
THOMAS,
Translated: You want an even more bloated government.
RICHARD,
See above posts, and thank a liberal for our demise.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IAhDGYlpqY
Am, you never fail to amaze me. Do you try to to sound like a right wing wacko all the time? Is that your goto attitude?
Working together to make this country better is anathema to you. You would rather see it burn to the ground than work with someone with a different point of view. You are antidemocratic and anti american. Thank god the founding fathers didn’t need you back then, we’d still have british accents.
FYI not everyone is a christian in this country. And thankfully, they all aren’t your kind of conservative.
Sadly, your facts are so far from reality it’s hard to see your way to the truth.
Here it is – Clinton, a liberal, saved the economy, balanced the budget, created a surplus,ended welfare and set the country on a course of growth a prosperity.
Bush, a Christian Conservative spent like a drunken sailor on drug benefits, tax cuts and two wars without a penny of additional revenue. His policies brought us to the brink of a second great depression and destroyed almost 10 million jobs, left us 5 trillion in the whole.
Our current deficits are Bush’s legacy.
You must really hate this country to want to destroy it so much.
How well has the left-wing policies worked for the State of Maine for 40 years prior to the current administration and legislature? If you say great you’re either a liberal, a career welfare recipient, or delusional. Don’t worry, you don’t have to limit it to one choice; in fact I would be surprised if you could.
You do realize that Congress was controlled by Republicans during the last 6 years of the Clinton administration, right? And, can you provide a link to the part where Clinton ended welfare as I can not recall that ever happening.
BConsiderate’s statements are slightly inaccurate but their point is spot on. It was the welfare reform act of 1996 which changed the way the program was carried out. It required the cooperation of both democrats and republicans to overhaul a burdensome and inefficient system which encouraged long term dependence. If only the two parties were as willing to work together today instead of the constant obstructionism from the right wing of the republicans. Clinton rejected several bills from Congress but instead of taking their marbles and going home mad, the republicans worked to come up with one that neither side liked 100% but could live with. It is called compromise, something that amcon thinks is a sign of weakness, the rest of us see as the spirit of the founding fathers.
You missed one very important point about the welfare reform that Clinton takes all the credit for: It was a part of the Republican’s Contract with America, and Clinton vetoed it twice before figuring he needed to sign it in order to win a second term. The compromise was completely political. But, Clinton was an excellent politician; unlike Obama.
EJ, yes, both the Republicans AND Bill Clinton both campaigned on cutting the size of government and getting welfare under control. They reached a compromise, as ademain said. Clinton did what he promised to do.
Yes, Clinton was an excellent politician. He also did a pretty good job as president (although he was a creep in his personal life, and I remain angry with him for lying under oath). Sometimes the person you don’t like does something you agree with.
EJ, President Obama will be re-elected with a far higher percentage of the vote than President Clinton had. That is a testament to his political skills. Sit back. Relax. Learn to enjoy the next four years and 11 months of his tenure.
If he gets re-elected, it won’y have anything to do with his political skills. It will be directly attributed to the immorality, selfishness, and greed in this country.
This from a supporter of the GOP (Greedy Old Party).
I’m a Conservative.
Conservative with a capital “C”? Does this mean you’re a Tory? A Christian Democrat? A Know Nothing? I’m confused as there is no Conservative Party in the USA outside of NY.
You’re confused, all right. You need to get over yourself.
I’ll bet you said the same thing about Bill Clinton at the time.
Nope. There was no way Clinton was going to lose to Bob Dole.
true. Dole was/is a good man, but he was too old and out of touch to win.
Replace the words “slightly inaccurate” with “completely inaccurate” and then delete the rest of your post and I’ll agree with you.
Thank you for demonstrating my point. You believe in one party rule. Move to China.
Just because something’s imperfect doesn’t mean that it’s evil. People tend to overlook that fact.
Police brutality is terrible (and far too common in this country, unfortunately), but that’s doesn’t mean that all cops are pigs, or that we should eliminate police departments from every town and city in America. Our military continues to commit terrible atrocities in our endless wars abroad, but they’re also responsible for an incredible amount of heroism and for providing America with the protection that we’d need even without our reckless warmongering. I could go on but I think I’ve made my point.
The social programs put in place by decades of progressivism aren’t perfect, but our state is far better off with them than we would be without them. Eliminating them, as some on the right are so eager to do, wouldn’t just be immoral, it would be flushing the future of Maine down the toilet.
So in your mind its OK to take money from people who earn it and give to others who don’t? That is working really well; Greece comes to mind. Now that the Greek Government can’t afford it anymore are the citizens willing to make sacrifices? And if we reach the point the Greeks have, so you think the outcome will be any different?
There is nothing evil about this; rather it is unethical. A country and or state that uses the Robin Hood School of Economics as their economic system is doomed to failure. As Margaret Thatcher once said “The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money”. No truer words.
Liberals want to be everyone’s mother. The problem is that they don’t know when someone has turned eighteen and should be responsible for their actions.
Today’s neo-conservatives seem to have forgotten that we are a society. We are not just a bunch of unconnected individuals. No man is an island, as John Donne said.
How do you get from your home to work? Do you drive on a road, perhaps? Who built that road? Was it built for free, or did someone pay taxes in order for that road to be built so you could get to work?
You call this taking money from people who earn it and giving it to others who don’t (after all, the road would be there even if you were a child too young to pay taxes, or if you were in the nursing home and no longer earning a salary. You even might want an ambulance to be able to go down that road someday).
Who pays for the U.S. military? The justice system, including judges, police, jails and prisons? Parks? City water and sewer lines? Public libraries? Fire departments? The enforcement of pure food and drug laws, to keep us safe from contamination? Taxpayers. We are a society. We pay taxes, and we get something in return. We are all in this together. That’s why we wrote a constitution and formed a government. If you don’t want to be part of our country, feel free to go somewhere else and quit whining.
I believe our government — which is we, the people — should reflect our values. As a Christian I personally believe in “blessed are the merciful” (Matthew 5:7). I think that’s a better idea than Ayn Rand’s atheist gospel of greed and “I’ve got mine, the heck with you,” which is the mantra of today’s Republican Party.
What you’re saying is that you want Maine to eventually become a full welfare state. I guess you’re not concerned about the survival of Maine at all, are you?
Uh, no, that’s not at all what he’s saying.
BC – Your recollection of Clinton and Bush are very left-wing skewed.
Clinton was blessed to have Republicans in charge for a few years of his administration so that he could sign bills that helped the economy and cut spending. Of course, he fought just about every one of them until the polls told him he needed them in order to get re-elected. But, then, he was a great politician.
Bush – Although he did allow far too much spending and government expansion, he did something that Clinton failed miserably at: he took the fight to the terrorists instead of bombing aspirin factories and attempting empty diplomacy. Also, during Bush’s administration, the first 6 years with the Republicans in charge, the economy was booming. The Dow hit over 14,000 before taking the dive shortly after the Dems took over the House and Senate in 06. And then, in the last two years of the BA, the Dems were the ones that spent like drunken sailors, because that’s what they do best.
But, Obama has outspent Bush in only 3 short years, and is still spending at an unsustainable rate. He had two years to pass anything he wanted, and he did. But, now that there’s a Republican House that wants to get things done, He’s got his favorite Senator, Harry Reid, blocking anything that might make the Republicans look good. For Obama, it’s all political. Of course, with the Dems, especially Obama, Reid, Pelosi, Watters, and the like, power and control are all they seek, and deceit and selfishness are all they know.
The Clinton budget that raised revenues and created the budget surplus was passed without a single Republican vote.
Actually, this was what was passed without a Republican vote:
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 (or OBRA-93[1]) was federal law that was enacted by the 103rd United States Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton. It has also been referred to, unofficially, as the Deficit Reduction Act of 1993. Part XIII, which dealt with taxes, is also called the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1993
6 Democrats in the Senate voted against it, and VP Gore had to break the tie.
41 Democrats in the House voted against it, and it squeaked by 219-213.
You never let facts get in the way of your rhetoric.
So you just agreed with what I said.
I was just filling in the missing information. And Clinton never actually got a surplus. That was the typical game of smoke and mirrors with the economy. Kind of like the present day unemployment rate and how it is manipulated to make it look about half of what it really is.
You seem to be the only person in the U.S. who thinks Clinton didn’t get an annual surplus.
In 2000, Grover Norquist said, “Now that the federal budget is in balance – indeed in substantial surplus – it is the right time for the conservative movement to establish a new goal.”
And George W. Bush, when taking office, said that we had to find a way to spend the surplus. And he accomplished his goal!
Google “Clinton budget surplus” and you’ll find quite a few that agree with me.
If you are saying that Clinton didn’t have enough time to pay off the massive deficit that had run up under Bush 41, Reagan, and their predecessors, you are correct. I suggested that Clinton had gotten us to an annual surplus. That’s different. Grover Norquist, George W. Bush, and plenty of other Republicans agree with me.
You are a complete and total ignoramus.
The democrats were elected to Congress in November of 2006. They did not take office until 2007. Any “damage” to the economy before 2007 was done by the republican President and Congress.
The Dow topped 14,000 in early October of 2007. That meant that the Democratically controlled Congress had had nearly 8 months to inflict their damage to the economy.
Hahahaha. That 14,000 was an illusion based on credit default swaps and worthless bundled mortgages.
What legislation did a Democratic Congress back that led to the 2008 crash? EJ, it is time to leave your fantasy world. Will you next tell us how Bush killed the man responsible for 9/11?
Bush loaded the gun. Obama gave the Seal Team permission to pull the trigger.
Bush said to reporters in 2003 that he’d stopped thinking or worrying much about bin Laden. He criticized then Senator Obama in February of 2008 for having said that he would, if he had actionable intelligence that bin Laden was in Pakistan, be sure to take action against him. Bush said this would be a violation of Pakistan’s sovereignty. When he became President, Obama had to reconstitute the CIA team that had been trying to track bin Laden. Bush had as much to do with taking out bin Laden as Neville Chamberlain had to do with stopping Hitler. Get real.
You haven’t answered the other question. What legislation did a Democratic Congress pass that made the market crash in 2008?
I am tired of Republicans who can’t admit the responsibility of their leaders for any mistakes.
“I am tired of Republicans who can’t admit the responsibility of their leaders for any mistakes.”
I’ve admitted on many occasions that Bush allowed far too much government expansion and spending. I’ve yet to hear anyone on your side admit that Obama is guilty of the same. In fact, it’s extremely rare that anyone on the left admit or say anything negative about Obama or the Dems on Congress.
For the third time, EJ, what legislation did a Democratric Congress pass in 2007 that caused the market crash in 2008?
Before a rooster crows twice will you deny me thrice?
The most popular cause of the crash of 07-08 is the housing bubble combined with the nations soaring deficit, both of which were caused by certain factions in Congress. The housing bubble was primarily caused by the unbridled actions of Freddie and Fannie and the forcing of lending institutions to pass out risky loans. Freddie and Fannie were being controlled by members of the finance committees in the House and Senate, and these same people were putting mob-like pressure on the banking and lending institutions. Just about all involved had a D behind their name (one, Dodd, had the most Ds).
The Bush Administration warned Congress several times of the danger of their actions and of the possibility of the collapse of the housing market. The Dems, particularly Watters, Dodd, and Frank, just laughed at them and went on with their business.
There are two other popular causes: one to blame Bush, and the other to blame Obama. Neither of these holds water when compared to the evidence that exists to support the first cause.
Ah, White Queen, you still believes six impossible things before breakfast.
Fannie and Freddie are loan guarantors, not loan originators. They force no one to issue loans.
The non-regulation of the industry allowed loan originators to quickly sell the mortgage, leaving them with no skin in the game. Goldman Sachs and others repackaged these loans as collateral debt obligations (CDOs), paid Standard and Poors and other rating agencies to rate them AAA (once again, the market failed, as someone who is paid by the bank to grade an investment is going to dance to the tune the fiddler plays) and sold them to their clients.
At the same time, Goldman Sachs and others bought credit default swaps (CDSs), betting against the the CDOs they had just sold. A CDS requires no insurable interest. Having already sold the CDO, Goldman Sachs had nothing to lose if the CDO went sour. It is a bet, not an insurance policy.
AIG sold a huge number of CDSs and this is why it had to be bailed out. Bailing out AIG made Goldman Sachs a huge amount of money. Bush’s Treasury Secretary, Hank Paulson, had no hesitation in bailing out AIG. He was the former head of Goldman Sachs.
The CDS market was larger than the underlying CDOs that were “insured” by it. To put this in easily understood terms for you, a CDS is comparable to my buying a fire insurance policy on the house I just sold you. Wall Street bought an average of two or three fire insurance policies on every house they sold, knowing that the houses were firetraps.
Read the report of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, which came out in January of 2011. It thoroughly explains the root causes of the 2008 crash.
The Right’s explanation of the crisis is the Community Reinvestment Act. As it was passed in 1977, this explanation is laughable.
You still have not pointed to any Act of Congress in 2007 that caused the 2008 crash.
You really got the left wing mantra down. Too bad you’re wrong. And drop the idiotic queen crap.
White Queen, I have never called you “idiotic queen crap.” I am too respectful to do that. Your belief in so may impossible things makes the sobriquet spot-on.
Nah, you’re the White Queen. I’m betting you don’t even understand the reference.
Bush closed the bin Laden desk at the CIA — Bush had given up. Obama resumed the search for bin Laden, made it a priority, and got him.
EJ is like the White Queen in Alice in Wonderland. He likes to believe six impossible things before breakfast. I believe I will begin addressing him as the White Queen.
So, are you going to admit that Obama isn’t perfect? Or are you going to remain delusional?
Um, I don’t think anyone here would dream of claiming that Obama is perfect. Sorry to ruin your little strawman.
Go through the comments. Find all the times that those on the left have criticized Obama. Make a list. It’ll be a very, very short list.
EJ, I’ve criticized Obama quite a lot — although not always to you. Your criticisms are so unfair, outrageous, and even silly, they should be answered, not agreed with.
But I’ve been upset that the Affordable Care Act — ObamaCares — doesn’t contain a “public option” for low-income families (or for anyone at all). So I would have put an element of so-called “socialism” into the plan, which he failed to do.
In fact, I thought the ObamaCares plan relied too much on the Republican model that came from places like the Heritage Foundation, Romneycare, and Newt Gingrich — I would have preferred a “Medicare-For-All” single-payer approach.
I thought the stimulus package was too small. I thought Wall Street got too little regulation, considering how much cash we handed them.
I think Obama handed too much power over to Congress, and should have pushed more vigorously for his programs.
I thought he was too conciliatory in the face of Republican intransigence and stonewalling.
I think he should make more recess appointments, because the Republicans are blocking almost all of his appointments.
It seemed to me that the man who communicated so well during the campaign seemed to lose his voice as president (until the middle of last summer).
I think he promised more during the campaign — especially on environmental issues — than he could deliver on.
In foreign policy, I think he has backed down too often when it comes to Israeli intransigence, especially concerning the confiscation of Palestinian lands and the building of new Israeli “settlements” populated by the Ultra-Orthodox who will not serve in the Israeli military, will not work, and do nothing except study Torah all day while they collect welfare.
So yes, I have plenty of criticisms of President Obama.
But — compared to Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, or Ron Paul — Barak Obama is the guy I plan to vote for enthusiastically in November.
If I’m not mistaken, I though you tested as a Libertarian. By your comments, you are even to the left of Obama, and that’s hard to do.
Yes, you are mistaken. You mistook me for a libertarian some time ago, and suggested the test that said I was just what I said I was, a little left of center. Yes, that puts me to the left of Obama, who is a centrist. You’re so far to the right that you can’t see that.
Obama is nowhere near center.
The problem is that before anyone on the left has time to offer legitimate criticism of Obama, they have to deal with the BS coming from the right. Just to name a few of the right’s imagined boogey men; death panel, foreign born, Muslim, communist, socialist, nazi, anti business, anti oil, hates America, hates white people, anti religion. I have probably forgotten a few since the right wing nuts keep coming up with more false claims. Oh yeah, I forgot, Mrs. Obama wants to dictate what we eat, just because she suggested developing more awareness of our diets.
That is very fitting since he is a White Supremacist.
Bush never gave up. Bin Laden was always a priority. The wheels were turning constantly in the background. Even Obama admitted that.
“I don’t know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.”- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02
“I am truly not that concerned about him.”
– G.W. Bush, repsonding to a question about bin Laden’s whereabouts,
3/13/02 (The New American, 4/8/02)
EJ, do you not know about Google?
Are you actually so naive that you think Bush dropped the ball on the hunt for Bin Laden? Do you know anything about the intelligence system? The hunt continued, and at a vigorous pace. Just because Bush made a couple of off-the-cuff remarks means nothing.
Let’s think about this for a moment. Bush declared his considerable lack of interest in bin Laden’s whereabouts in 2002. For the rest of his presidency there were no press conferences, news releases, comments by pundits, explanations by the military, nothing, nada about looking for or running down bin Laden. Does this sound like Bush was hunting at a vigorous pace.
Most revealing of all there were no spiels from old reactionaries explaining that the lack of interest really means that Bush is secretly setting up a Seals patrol so the next president can get bin Laden. Does this sound like the swaggering, get him dead or alive, big balls, Bush?
BTW if Bush gets to make off the cuff remarks that aren’t true does President Obama also get a pass if he makes an off the cuff remark, like ” 57 states” or will you reactionaries still hound him for not knowing there are 50 states in your America which obviously means he isn’t an American.
In describing Clinton’s Presidency you stated- “ended welfare”
Now, who is the “Wacko ” whose “facts are so far from reality”?
You appear to be another misguided liber who doesn’t know the difference between loving your country and hating it. How dare you say I hate my country when michelle obama stated in her own words that she despised America until her husband took over. Why don’t you try reading obama’s book and listen to excerpts from his talking points going back some ten years ago, or his old cronies and commie friends, and you might actually figure out who loves their country. I oppose you libs, progressives, multiculturalist and ” I need the government to survive ” folks. I can’t even recognise the old REPUBLIC that she once was, because you folks have so destroyed almost all remanence of what was good about her ,
and replaced it with everything that our founders fought against.
amconservative – did you read President Obama’s book?
No he just read mouth breathing, rage infested conservative reviews of it. LOL
You give him too much credit.
Why would any right minded person need to read his book? Did you liberals read Ann Coulters latest work?
Have you had the rabies test yet?
LOL …….. think it will help?
Everything you just posted is complete and unadulterated b.s. I’d refute your statements but I don’t care enough to waste my time.
Since, according to you, we have supposedly passed the point of no return, then can I gleefully report that we shall no longer be hearing from you as it wouldn’t do any good anyway?
Scary thing is you probably believe the pseudo-Christian psychobabble you preach. Thanks but no thanks.
In the past when amcon expressed disdain for multiculturalism, I challenged him to look up the words in his post and only use those which were strictly American. I stated I did not expect him to post any more here since there are so few words of strictly American origin. I was hoping to put an end to his irrational rants. Our language itself comes from many cultures. Apparently amcon has worked through his cognitive dissonance, so I doubt your post will have any effect. Oh well, one can hope.
Amconservative, since you feel we have passed the point of no return, I suggest you refrain from voting.
“For me I’ll stand by my Christian-Conservative convictions. Compromise is simply a sign of weakness. How about we elect only Christian-Conservatives and we can solve your problem at the same time. All that arguing and wasted energy won’t exist anymore, and we can save the country while we’re at it.”
Surely you jest.
Hear now this, O foolish people, and without understanding; which have eyes, and see not; which have ears, and hear not: Jeremiah 5:21
Translation: There are none so blind as those who will not see. The most deluded people are those who choose to ignore what they already know.
Thomas Bonner–Grover Norquist is a servant of the neo-aristocracy. The small percentage of Americans who want his pledge to be effective are the ones who already have too much.
Here’s the list so you can see if your “representative” is really representing you or them:
http://www.atr.org/atr-urges-all-maine-legislators-join-a6667
Thomas–You are right on with Grover Norquist, I don’t know what he has on these people but I agree with you about never voting for anybody who signed that pledge. ” I pledge never to vote for any pledge signers”.
William– I agree and Olympia should be the first one to go.
Richard–I agree we need to find a way to seperate them out.
Yes!
You write about lobbyist Grover Norquist, “I don’t know what he has on these people…” What he has is an unreasonable signed pledge that they will never vote for any tax increase for the rest of their political careers, no matter what future circumstances are. And he has considerable PAC money that he will use for negative ads to unseat any politician who signs this pledge and then realizes it was a stupid mistake. And his PAC also targets Republicans who refuse to sign the pledge. He is a puppet-master who has most Republican senators and representatives cowering in terror. Norquist is a powerful and deluded elitist who is doing his best to wreck our nation, and he is doing it by controlling the Republicans from the shadows.
The money behind him is from a Koch run organizations and think tanks.
And you can prove that? I think not.
From the website of the Charles Koch Institute
Current partner organizations include:
American Council of Trustees and Alumni
America’s Future Foundation
American Legislative Exchange Council
Bill of Rights Institute
Center for Competitive Politics
Charles Koch Foundation
George Washington Regulatory Studies Center
Heritage Foundation
Institute for Energy Research
Institute for Humane Studies
Law and Economics Center,
George Mason University
Mercatus Center
National Center for Policy Analysis
National Legal and Policy Center
National Taxpayers Union Foundation
Phillips Foundation
State Policy Network
Students for Liberty
Sunshine Review
Tax Foundation
These are all good causes. Now list the groups that George Soros contributes to.
I listed Koch’s reactionary foundations. Don’t be so lazy, list Soros yourself if you want them. You need to take some responsibility for your own learning.
Anyway the question was whether I could prove that Koch funded Norquist. I did. The National Taxpayers Union is Norquist’s baby. I believe he also has something to do with the Tax Foundation.
Contributions and partnerships do not necessarily equate to “funding”. I contribute to different organizations and causes, but I, in no way, fund them.
Thomas, William, Sarah you saw my Write-ME-In facebook page now didn’t you? That is exactly what my candidacy is all about. Funny you should feel the same way. But I don’t believe we can use the system as it now functions. We need something different. Find your candidate and do it without asking for money. Prove to those who hold the purse strings that it can be done without money….. from anyone.
Sarah, couldn’t agree more. Unfortunately, on the Maine dhhs budget vote, we saw democrats and republicans come together to get something done, but a group of extreme Senate Democrats voted to block the bill which came from long, hard work by the all 13 members of the appropriations committee. Our legislators had a chance to show us they could work together, but they let us down again.
Wish their oath meant more than their pledge to Norquist.
Sarah, thanks for the info, I’ll be looking into that.
William, I don’t have an answer, but I won’t be voting for any incumbant.
Thomas, Grover Norquist is representative of the one percent(ers). In my opinion.
Sarah- The top 1% control the politics in this country. Are there any filthy rich, self absorbed people in your little club? Any trust fund babies hell bent on destroying trade unions?
Sarah Morehead: “Eliot Cutler has launched One Maine and is its first chair,” so I guess we know where this organization is coming from–a disgruntled loser in the 2010 gubernatorial race who is backing re-named ACORN- related organizations in Maine to get ahead now.
Readers: be careful whom you follow! The Bangor Daily News endorsed Eliot–Democrat turned Independent in Name Only–
Thomas: Simply put, if they don’t sign the pledge then their own right wing NAZI Party will turn on them…and since nobody else will vote for them, they’d be out of office. They’re a bunch of boot lickers who want so badly to be elected so that they can steal from the rest of us will kiss anyone’s butt to do so.
Uncle, let’s not call them Nazis. Plutocrats, misguided, reactionary, yes, but Nazis, no. The Nazis gave us Auschwitz, while the GOP may give us the gift of Frothy Mix Santorum. Let them continue their rampage to the radical right.
That’s Sir Frothy Mix to you!
I stand corrected.
Uncledrinky is not far off. When the Conservative Political Action Committee allows white nationalist Peter Brimelow to head a panel, and Santorum, Gingrich, and Romney attend the conference, it is difficult to find another appropriate label. Peter Brimelow hosts a website which is specifically antisemetic, among many other Nazi-like ideas. This is how far to the right the republican party has wandered, and how important it is to keep an eye on their policies and personnel.
Invoking the nazis seldom strengthens your argument, no matter where you fall on the political spectrum.
According to the Americans for Tax Reform (atr.org), in Maine, the Governor, 4 Senators and 31 House Members have signed the infamous Taxpayer Protection Pledge. This Pledge solemnly binds them to oppose any and all tax increases – without exception. Call on these lawmakers to renounce this pledge and legislate with their own free will. Maine’s representatives in Congress have not signed this Pledge.
http://atr.org/userfiles/file/StatePledgeQ&A.pdf
Grover Norquist quotes:
“We are trying to change the tones in the state capitals – and turn them toward bitter nastiness and partisanship.”
“We’re branding the whole party that way. “The people who are going to be running for Congress in 10 or 20 years are coming out of state legislatures with a history with the pledge.”
Republicans want a guy who will portray what he’s doing as building on the Bush record.”
Don’t talk to Congress. Do executive orders.”
Obama can sit there and let all the tax [cuts] lapse, and then the Republicans will have enough votes in the Senate in 2014 to impeach.
It is “unacceptable for those who have signed my pledge to vote in favor of any tax increase”.
….“opposing the extension of the payroll tax cut, would not amount to supporting a tax increase.”
“We don’t need a president to tell us in what direction to go. We know what direction to go.. … We just need a president to sign this stuff. ……. Pick a Republican with enough working digits to handle a pen to become president of the United States. ………. His job is ….. to sign the legislation that has already been prepared.”
Yes, Norquist is a deluded and dangerous manipulator, whose Pledge and PAC money help him control the Republican Party, since most Republican office-holders are in terror of his money, influence, and ruthlessness.
I’d use the word bullying to describe his actions not something as reserved as “control”.
Yes, msally, “bullying” is a better word than “controlling.” Thanks!
I would dare say that the majority of the Norquist haters on here have never even listened to him. He’s far less extreme than many in the Democratic party. I mean, just listen to Maxine Watters and her rants. She’s a verifiable lunatic.
White Queen, her name is spelled “Waters.” Read the quotes from Norquist assembled by Sally Jones and tell me which ones you agree with. Sally marshalls evidence, while you offer only conclusions.
I’ve never voted for Maxine Waters, and I’ve never held her up as an example of anything at all. Of course, she doesn’t have anything like the malevolent power and influence of Grover Norquist.
And Norquist has nothing in comparison to the power and influence of George Soros and his billions.
But, about Maxine, you know that if the Dems get the House back, she’ll be the head of the Finance Committee. Talk about power and the opportunity to abuse it. And she will. She said so herself.
Soros contributes to some good causes, but he doesn’t have half the power of Norquist, who uses all his string-pulling and bullying for evil. Almost every Republican office-holder in America is in terror of Norquist, and they pretty much all do his bidding. Nothing of substance happens in the Republican Party without the approval of Grover Norquist. That’s why nothing good ever comes out of the Republican Party anymore.
Soros has brought down the economies of several nations. Norquist? No. Soros has injected hundreds of millions to manipulate our economy and may have even caused part of the Wall Street crash. Norquist? No. Soros contributes to many left wing groups and fully funds others. Norquist? Don’t think so.
Soros has a whole lot more monetary power and influence, and, if the truth came out, owns a lot more politicians than Norquist. If it weren’t for Soros, Hillary Clinton would most likely be President.
One controls a child and bullies an adolescent or adult. Given the nature of most Republican legislators, “control” may be the more precise word.
Good point.
LOL
This is,by the way, is where you lost any semblance of credibility
In describing Snowe, this gem here- ” a constant puppet of the Republican right”.
He should have added ‘in the pockets of the insurance and financial industries’
she is a hack, constantly flailing around and blaming anyone in site and talking out of both sides of her mouth.
At least she doesn’t sound like a wide-mouthed frog, as does our other Senator.
You are correct. Snowe has only been a puppet of the Republican right for just over two years. Once she perceived a threat of a tea party primary challenge she gladly accepted the puppet strings.
I am some tired of reading about Grover Norquist. Isn’t it about time that the welfare queens and their baby daddies–excuse me, the disadvantaged pick a new target to demonize.
Grover Norquist is being criticized by intelligent, thoughtful, well read, knowledgable people who find his actions unrealistic, unconstitutional, anti-American, cynical and mean spirited.
Unconstitutional? I’d love to see anyone try to explain that.
Norquist’s “drowning the government in the bathtub” comment.
“I’m not in favor of abolishing the government. I just want to shrink it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.”
Explanation?
Not unconstitutional he has a right to express his ideas, but it’s certainly anti-constitutionl to state that you want to do away with the US government. It actually sounds a bit treasonous. If you do away with the government there really isn’t much of a country.
Do intelligent, thoughtful, well read, knowledgable people change their stories so often? First his actions were unconsitutional, then they weren’t. Now they’re anti-constitutional, based on the belief that he wants to do away with the US government. Any evidence for that? There must be, given your intelligence, thoughtfulness, knowledge, and scholarly acomplishments; not to mention your charitable nature.
I think I’ll just let it go at mean spirited, anti-American, cynical and unrealistic, with a sprinkling of elitism and a nasty dash of bullying. How’s that for intelligent, thoughtful, knowledgable and scholarly to boot. Charitable about Grover? Nah! not so much.
Oh, what a tangled web we weave…
She has not deceived. The very first enumerated power of Congress is the power to lay and collect taxes. Insisting that Congress surrender that power for all time and all purposes effectively amends the Constitution through extra-Constitutional means.
He’s not saying he wants to drown it in the bathtub…he just wants it to be small enough to do that. His goal is not anarchy…it’s smaller government.
What a marvellous example of boot-licking of Grover Norquist!
Sorry…I was just clarifying what Norquist meant. I am NOT a fan of Norquist, his pledge, or any elected official who swears to it. The question of whether or not to raise taxes should be answered in a discussion…not a suicide pact.
I withdraw my comment.
No worries. We don’t always agree, but I think we do here.
“Some people say Kleenex when they mean tissue. We will jealously guard the real phrasing the way Kleenex and Coca-Cola do. We will sue anyone who says it wrong and make lots of money.” “My goal is to cut government in half in twenty-five years, to get it down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub.” “We are trying to change the tones in the state capitals – and turn them toward bitter nastiness and partisanship.”
When you look at several Norquist quotes it becomes clear that smaller government is not the goal.
That’s not his quote.
Those elected to Congress take an Oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States. No where is Grover Norquist mentioned in the Constitution. Yet this “pledge” which many in Congress have signed has taken on more power than their oath. If anyone who has signed the pledge does not vote against any and all tax increases, then Norquist uses his influence and money to buy adds which usually result in voters turning against the Congressman come election time. The result is that those elected to represent their constituents in fact represent Norquist.
That doesn’t pass the straight face test. What evidence do you have that the Norquist pledge has taken on more power than their oath to the Constitution? Politicians break promises on a daily basis, and they are held accountable by several organizations. Are you saying that the actions of Moveon.org and the NRA are unconstitutional?
I have not heard of anyone who has signed a pledge to moveon. As far as the NRA goes, their basic premise is defense of the 2nd amendment, which is part of the Constitution. I may disagree with some of their statements, but I do not see how they could be considered anti-American or anti-Constitution. I would consider them just the opposite, even if I do not approve of everything they say.
What is the significance of signing a pledge? If, for example, a senator promises during a campaign stump speech to oppose Social Security reform, goes to Washington and breaks his promise, is targeted by Moveon and defeated in a primary or general election, how is that different from what Norquist’s group is doing?
On a related note, do you really think that the no new tax pledge is keeping anyone from voting to raise taxes?
Yes.
Care to provide a real answer to my earlier question?
….
Agreed and well stated…..
William you are so correct. Snowe has been a disgrace to Maine and to the U.S.A. If the people reelect her then they deserve what they get.