Conservatives like me don't get a vote in Democratic primaries, but we do have an interest. Even we frothing right-wingers know that the country needs a serious and responsible Democratic Party to counter the Republicans when they need countering, and beat them when they need beating.
Ahh, the always ingenious and never defensive David Brooks, master of the loaded term and flawed argument.
Right out of the starting gate, Dave makes a stupid assumption: all conservatives are republicans. What he should be saying is "Conservatice Repubublicans like me..."
I wrote a letter to the New York Times about this (David Brooks never answers his email):
In his first sentence, "Conservatives like me don't
get a vote in Democratic primaries, but we do have an
interest," David Brooks implies that all conservatives
are Republicans (with the added assumption that all
Democrats are liberals). This is a canard; Zell
Miller is a staunch conservative and is a Democrat.
Republican Senator Arlen Specter doesn't get to vote
in the democratic primaries either, and on many
issues, including abortion, he is to the left of Mr.
Miller.
I'm sure Mr. Brooks doesn't mean to do this, as he has
previously written that it is wrong to "give your foes
a collective name — liberals, fundamentalists or
neocons" because doing so "can rob them of their
individual humanity."
Mr. Brooks either needs some lessons in writing,
consistency, or honesty. I'm not sure which.
Of course, Mr. Brooks launches into the requisite Howard Dean tirade: "Dean, F He's vague about what he's for, but he's venomous toward anyone who disagrees with him. If elected, political discourse would sink to new lows."
I have to say, given how much all these people seem to hate Howard Dean, I have to say I like him more and more. "Vague about what he stands for"? Gimme a break! Here's Dean's site, with his positions on the issues in the left-hand column. Seems pretty clear to me.
Here's an example, taken directly from the page:
If elected president, I will pursue an aggressive agenda to restore American democracy through effective campaign finance and election reforms. We will attack these problems on multiple fronts:
1. Fix the Presidential Public Finance System. For more than a generation, the public financing of presidential elections had widespread support and helped keep campaign spending in check. But today the system is on the brink of failure. Candidates have dwindling incentive to participate — and may doom their chances of election if they do.
The front-loaded primary season, which forces participating candidates to reach spending limits early, leaves those who survive virtually penniless until the summer conventions. In the current cycle, a participating candidate would be battered every day on the public airwaves by an incumbent president with no primary challenger, no compunction about rejecting public financing and a war chest that could reach a quarter of a billion dollars. The spending limits are simply too low for modern campaigns, and leave serious candidates little choice but to opt out. And with the new, higher individual contribution limits, the 1-to-1 public match of the first $250 of every donation is less valuable than it once was.
Within the first months of my Administration I will present Congress with legislation that will take these necessary steps to save the program:
Increase the public match. The fund should match the first $100 of every donation on a five-to-one basis. That would make every $100 donation worth $600 to a campaign, and help put a candidate’s focus back where it should be: on small donors, rather than wealthy contributors and special interests. Candidates should opt into the system for both the primary and the general election to receive matching funds.
Improve incentives for candidates to accept public funding. One way to encourage participation in the public financing system is to make it less of an advantage to opt out of the system. If one candidate opts out of public financing and exceeds the spending limits, his opponents should receive additional public funds to level the playing field.
Raise the primary spending limits. Primary candidates need more resources to get their message across, so voters know where they stand. They also need to be heard above the roar of wealthy special interest groups that buy huge amounts of advertising at election time. We should double the primary limit, placing it at the same level as limits for the general election, which should remain as they are.
Fix the funding mechanism. The presidential public financing program is funded by a “check off” box on our income tax forms. Too many people fail to check the box because they incorrectly believe it will cost them more money, and simply have no idea where the money goes. To ensure that the program is on sound financial footing, the amount that taxpayers can choose to direct to the program should be raised from $3 to $5 and a program of public education should make clear what this program is all about: limiting the influence of big donors and special interests.
In addressing this issue, we will draw on the work of experts from across the political spectrum who have thought long and hard about the best way to save the system, including nonpartisan groups like Democracy 21 and the Campaign Finance Institute.
2. Establish a Public Financing Option for All Federal Elections. The same scramble for big money that plagues presidential elections corrupts congressional campaigns too. Therefore the same principles that govern public financing of presidential campaigns — spending limits and public funding, including the new multiple match rate I have proposed for small contributions — should apply to U.S. Senate and House elections too.
3. Offer a “Take Back Our Democracy” Tax Credit. We can do still more to encourage citizen participation, and foster candidate focus on ordinary small donors. I will propose a dollar-for-dollar matching tax credit on the first $100 of every individual contribution made to a federal candidate. My plan would offer this incentive only to individuals making under $50,000 a year, or $100,000 in the case of joint filers. This proposal will empower the disempowered and draw new donors into the political marketplace.
4. Take Back the Public Airwaves. The skyrocketing cost of broadcast advertising drives up the cost of modern campaigns while stations ignore their responsibility to provide public interest programming. We should reclaim the public airwaves by requiring that TV and radio broadcasters offer a few hours of civic broadcasting every week around election time. I also favor a system in which low dollar contributions will be matched with advertising vouchers. This program would provide another strong incentive for candidates to limit fundraising and focus on low-dollar donors. It could be funded entirely by a small .5% spectrum use fee — an entirely fair reclamation of the public airwaves after the great spectrum giveaway of the 1980s.
5. Abolish the FEC and Start Over. All the reforms in the world will fail unless there is meaningful enforcement. But the current enforcement body — the Federal Election Commission — is an agency that was designed to fail. Congress wanted weak enforcement — a watchdog “that doesn’t bark,” as the Washington Post put it. With three commissioners from each party on a six-member panel, the commission repeatedly deadlocks on party lines, and fails to punish some of the most egregious violations of the law. I will work for passage of bipartisan legislation now before Congress to scrap the agency completely and create a new, independent three-member Federal Election Agency, with administrative law judges to enforce the law objectively.
In the meantime, I will take back the FEC from the party machinery by appointing tough-minded, independent commissioners who will enforce the law in the public interest.
6. No More Hanging Chads. In the wake of the Florida debacle, Congress passed a law to improve the administration of elections but failed to fully fund these reforms. The specter of another Florida is too frightening to contemplate. The moment for action is now — not after the next time an election is taken out of the people’s hands by the Supreme Court. It is time to fund that Act.
At the same time the law should be strengthened to increase political participation, including access to the ballot, and ensure that minorities and individuals with disabilities are not left behind by making sure that new voting options are fully available to all, including through “no excuse” absentee ballots.
Reliability of voting systems is also of paramount importance. Electronic voting may be the wave of the future, but these voting systems are susceptible to software glitches. In the 2002 elections, computer problems were reported in at least 14 states, including Florida. A number of expert panels have questioned the security of the software. I support pending legislation to require that all voting machines produce an actual paper record that voters can view to check the accuracy of their votes, and allow election officials to verify votes in the event of irregularities.
We also must confront organized political fraud. In the 2002 U.S. Senate election in Louisiana, for example, anonymous ballots distributed in public housing projects were deployed to suppress the minority vote. We need comprehensive education programs for both voters and poll workers to fight misinformation.
7. Embrace the Iowa Good Government Model of Non-Partisan Redistricting. In almost every state, politicians control the redistricting process. In some states one party gerrymanders districts for its own advantage. In other states the two parties conspire to protect incumbents of both parties. And in Texas, Tom DeLay and Karl Rove draw the map themselves.
As computer technology has refined the art of redistricting to a science, the U.S. House of Representatives increasingly resembles the old Soviet Politburo — only a handful of races are competitive in each cycle. In 2000, for example, 87 percent of the House's 435 seats were decided by margins greater than 10 percent. Safe congressional districts are bad for democracy. They depress voter turnout, foster extreme partisanship and promote legislative gridlock.
Only Iowa, Arizona and a handful of other states have chosen a different path: non-partisan redistricting. An expert body draws legislative maps that disregard partisanship and incumbency to create compact and contiguous districts, consistent with the requirements of the Voting Rights Act. As President, I will work to move every state toward the important Iowa Model to redraw congressional districts. I will also urge federal action to prevent repetition of the recent maneuvers in Texas and Colorado by limiting redistricting to once every ten years. When I am President, citizens will choose their representatives instead of politicians choosing their voters.
8. Protect the Voting Rights Act. I pledge to fight for reauthorization of the invaluable Voting Rights Act of 1965 when it comes up for reauthorization in 2007. The Act contains key provisions protecting minority rights. We need to retain what is best about the Act, and fight attempts to use the Act for partisan advantage.
9. A National Commission to Strengthen American Democracy. There are many other important ideas to explore. I would establish a commission of ordinary Americans — not politicians — to consider such cutting edge ideas as instant runoff voting, Internet voting, nonpartisan primaries, an Election Day holiday and abolition of the Electoral College. American patriots established our democracy and American patriots can reinvigorate it.
The rest of the issues receive similar bullet points. I don't know what Brooks is missing unless he hasn't been to Dean's site.
Ahh, the always ingenious and never defensive David Brooks, master of the loaded term and flawed argument.
Right out of the starting gate, Dave makes a stupid assumption: all conservatives are republicans. What he should be saying is "Conservatice Repubublicans like me..."
I wrote a letter to the New York Times about this (David Brooks never answers his email):
In his first sentence, "Conservatives like me don't
get a vote in Democratic primaries, but we do have an
interest," David Brooks implies that all conservatives
are Republicans (with the added assumption that all
Democrats are liberals). This is a canard; Zell
Miller is a staunch conservative and is a Democrat.
Republican Senator Arlen Specter doesn't get to vote
in the democratic primaries either, and on many
issues, including abortion, he is to the left of Mr.
Miller.
I'm sure Mr. Brooks doesn't mean to do this, as he has
previously written that it is wrong to "give your foes
a collective name — liberals, fundamentalists or
neocons" because doing so "can rob them of their
individual humanity."
Mr. Brooks either needs some lessons in writing,
consistency, or honesty. I'm not sure which.
Of course, Mr. Brooks launches into the requisite Howard Dean tirade: "Dean, F He's vague about what he's for, but he's venomous toward anyone who disagrees with him. If elected, political discourse would sink to new lows."
I have to say, given how much all these people seem to hate Howard Dean, I have to say I like him more and more. "Vague about what he stands for"? Gimme a break! Here's Dean's site, with his positions on the issues in the left-hand column. Seems pretty clear to me.
Here's an example, taken directly from the page:
If elected president, I will pursue an aggressive agenda to restore American democracy through effective campaign finance and election reforms. We will attack these problems on multiple fronts:
1. Fix the Presidential Public Finance System. For more than a generation, the public financing of presidential elections had widespread support and helped keep campaign spending in check. But today the system is on the brink of failure. Candidates have dwindling incentive to participate — and may doom their chances of election if they do.
The front-loaded primary season, which forces participating candidates to reach spending limits early, leaves those who survive virtually penniless until the summer conventions. In the current cycle, a participating candidate would be battered every day on the public airwaves by an incumbent president with no primary challenger, no compunction about rejecting public financing and a war chest that could reach a quarter of a billion dollars. The spending limits are simply too low for modern campaigns, and leave serious candidates little choice but to opt out. And with the new, higher individual contribution limits, the 1-to-1 public match of the first $250 of every donation is less valuable than it once was.
Within the first months of my Administration I will present Congress with legislation that will take these necessary steps to save the program:
Increase the public match. The fund should match the first $100 of every donation on a five-to-one basis. That would make every $100 donation worth $600 to a campaign, and help put a candidate’s focus back where it should be: on small donors, rather than wealthy contributors and special interests. Candidates should opt into the system for both the primary and the general election to receive matching funds.
Improve incentives for candidates to accept public funding. One way to encourage participation in the public financing system is to make it less of an advantage to opt out of the system. If one candidate opts out of public financing and exceeds the spending limits, his opponents should receive additional public funds to level the playing field.
Raise the primary spending limits. Primary candidates need more resources to get their message across, so voters know where they stand. They also need to be heard above the roar of wealthy special interest groups that buy huge amounts of advertising at election time. We should double the primary limit, placing it at the same level as limits for the general election, which should remain as they are.
Fix the funding mechanism. The presidential public financing program is funded by a “check off” box on our income tax forms. Too many people fail to check the box because they incorrectly believe it will cost them more money, and simply have no idea where the money goes. To ensure that the program is on sound financial footing, the amount that taxpayers can choose to direct to the program should be raised from $3 to $5 and a program of public education should make clear what this program is all about: limiting the influence of big donors and special interests.
In addressing this issue, we will draw on the work of experts from across the political spectrum who have thought long and hard about the best way to save the system, including nonpartisan groups like Democracy 21 and the Campaign Finance Institute.
2. Establish a Public Financing Option for All Federal Elections. The same scramble for big money that plagues presidential elections corrupts congressional campaigns too. Therefore the same principles that govern public financing of presidential campaigns — spending limits and public funding, including the new multiple match rate I have proposed for small contributions — should apply to U.S. Senate and House elections too.
3. Offer a “Take Back Our Democracy” Tax Credit. We can do still more to encourage citizen participation, and foster candidate focus on ordinary small donors. I will propose a dollar-for-dollar matching tax credit on the first $100 of every individual contribution made to a federal candidate. My plan would offer this incentive only to individuals making under $50,000 a year, or $100,000 in the case of joint filers. This proposal will empower the disempowered and draw new donors into the political marketplace.
4. Take Back the Public Airwaves. The skyrocketing cost of broadcast advertising drives up the cost of modern campaigns while stations ignore their responsibility to provide public interest programming. We should reclaim the public airwaves by requiring that TV and radio broadcasters offer a few hours of civic broadcasting every week around election time. I also favor a system in which low dollar contributions will be matched with advertising vouchers. This program would provide another strong incentive for candidates to limit fundraising and focus on low-dollar donors. It could be funded entirely by a small .5% spectrum use fee — an entirely fair reclamation of the public airwaves after the great spectrum giveaway of the 1980s.
5. Abolish the FEC and Start Over. All the reforms in the world will fail unless there is meaningful enforcement. But the current enforcement body — the Federal Election Commission — is an agency that was designed to fail. Congress wanted weak enforcement — a watchdog “that doesn’t bark,” as the Washington Post put it. With three commissioners from each party on a six-member panel, the commission repeatedly deadlocks on party lines, and fails to punish some of the most egregious violations of the law. I will work for passage of bipartisan legislation now before Congress to scrap the agency completely and create a new, independent three-member Federal Election Agency, with administrative law judges to enforce the law objectively.
In the meantime, I will take back the FEC from the party machinery by appointing tough-minded, independent commissioners who will enforce the law in the public interest.
6. No More Hanging Chads. In the wake of the Florida debacle, Congress passed a law to improve the administration of elections but failed to fully fund these reforms. The specter of another Florida is too frightening to contemplate. The moment for action is now — not after the next time an election is taken out of the people’s hands by the Supreme Court. It is time to fund that Act.
At the same time the law should be strengthened to increase political participation, including access to the ballot, and ensure that minorities and individuals with disabilities are not left behind by making sure that new voting options are fully available to all, including through “no excuse” absentee ballots.
Reliability of voting systems is also of paramount importance. Electronic voting may be the wave of the future, but these voting systems are susceptible to software glitches. In the 2002 elections, computer problems were reported in at least 14 states, including Florida. A number of expert panels have questioned the security of the software. I support pending legislation to require that all voting machines produce an actual paper record that voters can view to check the accuracy of their votes, and allow election officials to verify votes in the event of irregularities.
We also must confront organized political fraud. In the 2002 U.S. Senate election in Louisiana, for example, anonymous ballots distributed in public housing projects were deployed to suppress the minority vote. We need comprehensive education programs for both voters and poll workers to fight misinformation.
7. Embrace the Iowa Good Government Model of Non-Partisan Redistricting. In almost every state, politicians control the redistricting process. In some states one party gerrymanders districts for its own advantage. In other states the two parties conspire to protect incumbents of both parties. And in Texas, Tom DeLay and Karl Rove draw the map themselves.
As computer technology has refined the art of redistricting to a science, the U.S. House of Representatives increasingly resembles the old Soviet Politburo — only a handful of races are competitive in each cycle. In 2000, for example, 87 percent of the House's 435 seats were decided by margins greater than 10 percent. Safe congressional districts are bad for democracy. They depress voter turnout, foster extreme partisanship and promote legislative gridlock.
Only Iowa, Arizona and a handful of other states have chosen a different path: non-partisan redistricting. An expert body draws legislative maps that disregard partisanship and incumbency to create compact and contiguous districts, consistent with the requirements of the Voting Rights Act. As President, I will work to move every state toward the important Iowa Model to redraw congressional districts. I will also urge federal action to prevent repetition of the recent maneuvers in Texas and Colorado by limiting redistricting to once every ten years. When I am President, citizens will choose their representatives instead of politicians choosing their voters.
8. Protect the Voting Rights Act. I pledge to fight for reauthorization of the invaluable Voting Rights Act of 1965 when it comes up for reauthorization in 2007. The Act contains key provisions protecting minority rights. We need to retain what is best about the Act, and fight attempts to use the Act for partisan advantage.
9. A National Commission to Strengthen American Democracy. There are many other important ideas to explore. I would establish a commission of ordinary Americans — not politicians — to consider such cutting edge ideas as instant runoff voting, Internet voting, nonpartisan primaries, an Election Day holiday and abolition of the Electoral College. American patriots established our democracy and American patriots can reinvigorate it.
The rest of the issues receive similar bullet points. I don't know what Brooks is missing unless he hasn't been to Dean's site.
<< Home