There does not appear to be a correlation between public campaign financing and increased effective Progressive representation in government at any level.

Conservative and radical candidates can access such funds just as easily as progressives.

One can easily imagine a coordinated effort to get as many candidates into a race as possible to pool the money behind one candidate or to push one message and thereby amplify the message while diluting to resources available for others.

Such an effort would make public financing and campaign spending limits a simple tool for the unscrupulous.

There is no guarantee that public financing and spending limits will not be subjected to fraud and abuse by avid and ingenious partisans.

Candidates, organization and message win elections. With these ingredients in the mix money will follow.

There is no reason to rob the taxpayer to support mediocre politicos.

Robert Chapman
Lansing, NY

"All the generals are perfectly clear that they don't have the military capacity to take Iran on in any meaningful fashion."

Drindl: That sounds eerily similar to the latest word out of Tehran...huh???

Public financing is important but only one part of the puzzle. How we select the major party's nominees for president needs to be completely revamped. What the Secretaries of States proposed in 2000 makes the most sense. Start out with Iowa and New Hampshire for tradition sake. Proceed to four regional primaries of 12 twelve states. Every four years rotate the regional order. That way, every state has a voice in the process and the country has longer to vet the candidates. Combined with an effective public financing system is the ingredient to a far healthier democracy.

http://intrepidliberaljournal.blogspot.com

hey there, anon. followed your link, and was sorry to see some typical mindless g.o.p. / bush a$$ kissing. if this country is indeed circling the drain, as some fear, it is due to the voluntary disengagement of thousands and thousands of human brains, the free will and decision-making capacity thereof having been ceded to a team by turns greedy, racist, cynical, and blind, and led by a grinning idiot. have a good night.

Can anybody explain for these stars how the government works?

http://newsbusters.org/stories/ugly_betty_bashes_bush.html?q=node/11039

it seems that thy don't know how our government works, that thy say we are not free. Miss America (Ferrera, the star of Ugly Batty) how can you speak against the president if you are not free???

I dunno, I feel oddly comforted by the fact Bush would not be present.

Sardonics aside, there really is not much for him to do in such an exercise. The absence is not dramatic.

'Dozens of high-level officials joined in a White House drill yesterday to see how the government would respond if several cities were attacked simultaneously with bombs similar to those used against U.S. troops in Iraq.

White House homeland security adviser Frances Fragos Townsend and the Homeland Security Council that she heads mapped out in advance a massive disaster involving improvised explosive devices, or IEDs. The attack targeted 10 U.S. cities, both large and small, at the same time, said a senior administration official who spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Townsend presided over the three-hour exercise, which brought the government's top homeland security officials to the Eisenhower Executive Office Building next to the White House. All Cabinet agencies were represented by their secretaries or other high-ranking officials, with about 90 participants in all, White House spokesman Scott Stanzel said.

****President Bush went on a bike ride yesterday morning and did not take part in the test.****

Oh. My. God. I don't even know what to say, except -- be very, very afraid -- your president is out -to-lunch.

Agreed. 'Free speech' should not mean that the one with the most money speaks the loudest but that everyone is equally able to voice their opinions.

If we were able to set up a system where every candidate would be guaranteed a reasonable exposure on TV and print (not just PBS either), I would be in favour or removing several current limitations from political speech such as not being able to endorse a specific candidate.

All tax credits and deductions should also be removed. Tax exemption for political groups should be reviewed, perhaps using income/revenue thresholds.

One absolute requirement, however, would be the inclusion of *full* disclosure of all sources of funding in any advertising/etc. pertaining to public policy.

..forgot the link -- they still have newspapers in the UK that report ACTUAL NEWS":

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article1434540.ece

This is probably the most important story in the world today -- bush and cheney's plans for a strike on Iran that would be a far deadlier miscalculation even than Iraq... but is our cowardly rightiwng puppet media picking it up? Nah.. after all, Anna Nicole is still dead -- and flash! her body is deteriorating!

'SOME of America's most senior military commanders are prepared to resign if the White House orders a military strike against Iran, according to highly placed defence and intelligence sources.

Tension in the Gulf region has raised fears that an attack on Iran is becoming increasingly likely before President George Bush leaves office. The Sunday Times has learnt that up to five generals and admirals are willing to resign rather than approve what they consider would be a reckless attack.

"There are four or five generals and admirals we know of who would resign if Bush ordered an attack on Iran," a source with close ties to British intelligence said. "There is simply no stomach for it in the Pentagon, and a lot of people question whether such an attack would be effective or even possible."

A British defence source confirmed that there were deep misgivings inside the Pentagon about a military strike. "All the generals are perfectly clear that they don't have the military capacity to take Iran on in any meaningful fashion. Nobody wants to do it and it would be a matter of conscience for them.

"There are enough people who feel this would be an error of judgment too far for there to be resignations."

A generals' revolt on such a scale would be unprecedented. "American generals usually stay and fight until they get fired," said a Pentagon source. Robert Gates, the defence secretary, has repeatedly warned against striking Iran and is believed to represent the view of his senior commanders.'

Thank you, CC -- and Judge, you beat me to it again... here's a piece from that article you mentioned about how the radical right is not liking any of the presdent R canditates:

WASHINGTON, Feb. 24 -- A group of influential Christian conservatives and their allies emerged from a private meeting at a Florida resort this month dissatisfied with the Republican presidential field and uncertain where to turn.

The event was a meeting of the Council for National Policy, a secretive club whose few hundred members include Dr. James C. Dobson of Focus on the Family, the Rev. Jerry Falwell of Liberty University and Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform. Although little known outside the conservative movement, the council has become a pivotal stop for Republican presidential primary hopefuls, including George W. Bush on the eve of his 1999 primary campaign.'

It's all about the money, folks -- the meeting was at the Waldorf Astoria on Amelia Island Plantation, [which is yes, a former plantation once inhabited almost entirely by slaves] -- and which is possibly the most expensive hotel in the country. And here are these 'christians' who became ultrarich by suckering the simple faithful, who think they are donating to do 'god's work'. These are cynical evil bast**rds who run public policy in this country.

Oh yes, this organization was founded by Tim LeHaye, the outright lunatic who's gotten filthy rich from the Rapture crowd.

And now they are whining because they can't find anyone evil enough to be there candidate. Oh boohoo.

Since Stalin and Hitler are dead, maybe they could recruit bin Ladin. He's very healthy and doing quite well reorganizing al-queda in Pakistan and planning nuclear attacks on the US-- he's well organized and he's got quite a growing following --but money talks [and this group has lots of it] so he could probably be convinced

I love when George Will speaks from On High that campaign financing reforms are infringments on the Right to Free Speech.

He never addresses the result of his stand which is, the more money I have, the more free speech I have.

I don't see anything heppening because none of the politicians are addressing it.

And think about this, what was the first reason that politicians fell in love with the netroots? The ability to raise a lot of money easily. The roots' political ideas are secondary.

The politicians found a new cookie jar and will exploit that until they reach a Point of Diminishing Returns (how costly can it be though?) or there is some type of scandal which makes them less enamored of it. So, they won't address campaing finance reform while there's a new source which hasn't been exploited to its maximum.

Also, I've always found it ironic that the thing which drives the cost of campaigns up so much now is the TV/radio advertising. That advertising is done using Public airways. Yep, the Public owns the airwaves, but the media moguls get rich selling campaign time on them.

Maybe the government should get a $0.25 rebate for every "political" dollar spent to advertise on the public airways. I would include the "527's."

The reality is though, that no campaign finance reform will happen again anytime soon. The players that would drive it are just not interested in it.

US President Tim Kalemkarian, US Senate Tim Kalemkarian, US House Tim Kalemkarian: best major candidate. If no Presidential matching fund what would happen?

The only way that the cost could be managed would be a cap on spending, but the courts have ruled, I think, that money is some way regarded as speech. The Congress has the power to do this, and then the court would have to make another ruling on the specific part or parts of the bill.

Please sign on!!!!

For uncensored news please go to:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.takingaimradio.info
www.onlinejournal.com

Ban Paperless Voting

A new bill in Congress would ban paperless voting. It's got enough support to pass, but time is short. This week, the Democratic leadership is deciding what Congress will take up next. If they don't put voting on the agenda, there simply won't be time to make the change by the 2008 presidential election. Sign this petition to ask the Democratic leaders in Congress to ban paperless voting before it's too late.
"Congress must ban paperless voting in time for the 2008 election. As voters, we support Rep. Rush Holt's paper ballots bill."

Please sign on at:

http://pol.moveon.org/paperlessvoting/

For uncensored news please go to:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.takingaimradio.info
www.onlinejournal.com

http://www.democrats.com/node/12077

IRAN NUMBERS

What is 99,289?
That's the number of people who have signed a petition opposing an attack on Iran.
What is 711?
No, it's not a convenience store.
Oh, you didn't think that? See, you're quicker than our unitary executive!
That's right: It's the number of people -- you and your friends -- who have to spend 10 seconds each at http://www.dontattackiran.org

in order for us to be able to announce a total of 100,000 people opposing this looming aggressive and catastrophic war.

Can you help us clear this mark? It's only a number, but it is a number we plan to announce in a big way that could have an impact on a White House and Congress that are already feeling the heat of public pressure and that rarest of forces: journalistic skepticism. But the moment is now. Have you signed the petition?

http://www.dontattackiran.org

My opinion is public financing is imperative and strict campaign rules should be implemented so the 'election period' is no more than 6 months long.

Of course candidates could 'speachify' prior to the 6 month campaign season, but they couldn't declare.

We're now 21 months away from the next election and everyone is campaigning. Its beyond absurd.

My internet provider was out for a long time last night and most likely a lot of us were in the same boat.

Public financing of Presidential campaigns is died and has been for several elction cycles. The most creative economy in the world are political campaigns.

I think that campaign donations should have full disclosure of donors and unlimited money donations. Apparently the current laws have only been successfully in creating a new industry of campaign consultants and election lawyers.

Danny L. McDaniel
Lafayette, Indiana

"...more than 60 responses" AND would've received even more if the comments system hadn't crashed. Interesting that at least some of the regulars (myself, drindl and blarg) are well-represented in this commentary.

Here's an interesting run down on the far right's conundrum in regards to picking a candidate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/25/us/politics/25secret.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp