If You Spend Enough Money, Will People Believe Your Lie?

"Perry pushed for a law that lets insurance companies raise homeowners’ rates without having to justify the increase." Back to Basics, --Wednesday, September 8th, 2010.


Spending by interest groups, so-called Political Action Committees and Unions most notably, is up well over 5 times what it was in the 2006 midterms, according to an article in New York Magazine.  Spending is up on both sides of the aisle, but these third-party groups are putting most of their money behind Republican candidates by a huge margin, approximately 7 to 1, according to The Washington Post!  This was all made possible by last years Supreme Court decision saying that limits on spending were essentially the same as limits on free speech.
I have a problem with this because I don’t think a pharmaceutical corporation should have a stronger voice than a network of cancer survivor groups just because they can spend more on campaigns, but I suppose outside spending isn’t all that different than spending by the candidates themselves.  Nothing stops a multimillionaire candidate from using his own funds to vastly outspend opponents on advertising.  In a sense this is buying the election, but legally it’s not seen that way.
What is disconcerting is the out and out dishonesty of the campaigns.  I am not naive.  Politics has always been a dirty game.  But in this election it seems that the fact that the backers of those PACs with the patriotic names can remain anonymous has emboldened them.  Politifact.com, a non-partisan service that evaluates the claims of political discourse, evaluated 31 claims made in the advertisments of these third party groups in the current campaigns throughout the country.  Only 5 were rated “mostly true” and two “true.”
Think about that for a minute.  31 claims were made in the political ads of third party organizations analyzed by Politifact.com.  On 16% of those were claims were based substantially on fact, on only 6% were essentially true.  All others were significant distortions of the facts or outright lies.
Continue reading

Operation Embarrass Your Congressman is an Embarrassment

Somebody apparently associated with the Tea Party movement (and GOP Congressional politics) has put up an anonymous guerilla site urging protesters to “embarrass their congressman” (women exempted?) over the recess with impromptu rallies and email blasts– ala Alex’s story on POLITICO today.
The site, set up today, mentions no specific issues — and doesn’t include an “About Us” tab or any information whatsoever about who set it up. It urges that protests be kept non-violent and “respectful” and gives a step-by-step tipsheet on politician tracking, like checking their daily itineraries.

via Operation Embarrass Your Congressman – Glenn Thrush – POLITICO.com.
generic viagra price It is truly an authentic solution and surely you will get a great benefit. Acai gives your body the energy it needs to play sports; pill viagra or just get through your busy day. 5. All these herbs are blended in right amount so that one can have viagra in india online http://cute-n-tiny.com/cute-animals/corgi-cat-door/ titillating experience of intimacy. Why not rush to have the capsules before it is too late? The sexual pleasure discount levitra http://cute-n-tiny.com/page/35/ becomes intense when a man ejaculates a large amount of thicker semen with force. But if you watch the videos on the site, submitted by participants in the movement themselves and therefor not filtered through the lens of what the people who support this movement would inevitably call the “Liberal Media,” you will see that the protests are generally not respectful at all.  Questions are asked, but the Representatives are not given a chance to respond.  People are booed and shouted down.
There is nothing wrong with following our elected officials and embarrassing them at every opportunity with challenging and insistent questions and demands for answers.  But they should be embarassed by their inability to answer or the lame answers they give.  There are many things wrong with harassing our elected officials and obstructing public discourse.  It is a disservice to those who want to engage our officials in genuine dialogue, and ultimately the only people who ought to be embarrassed are the protestors.
Shouting people down at public meetings is the equivalent of Bill O’Reilley turning off the mic of guests he doesn’t agree with.  It is bullying and it is not dialogue.