Outside Erie

5 Responses to “Ridge Takes the Stage Tonight”

1. Ed Tonkin
   September 4th, 2008 at 8:27 pm

   While it’s great that Mr. Ridge will have some prime time face time, it is really ashame that we are limited to just the Repubocrats and Demlicans, opps I wrote that out loud. The Media has cow-towed to the two major parties and refused to cover Dr. Paul and his Rally for the Republic (which has the same name, unfortunately, as Jacque Chirac’sFrench political party) which put forward a whole series of solutions that are not only extremely different from the duopolists, but has the added dividend of being Constitutional. In addition, Jesse, the Govenor, Ventura put down a marker for 2012 at that Rally.

   The three so-called “Big Three” Third Parties (Constitutional, Green, and Libertarian) should be, but will not be heard during the Presidential debates. The Bi-partisan Presidential committee is set up to prevent third parties, like Ross Perot’s from ever debating again. The Media is against Third Parties, the State Ballot Access laws are aimed at preventing competition, and the major parties are against anyone else putting ideas forward against the duopolists. ( The Pennsylvania Ballot Access laws are very hard on Third Parties and create a two tiered system to prevent competition and might also violate the Americans with Disabilities Act.) I’ve spoken with a local legislator and they know the laws are wrong, but feels that no change can come in the current legislature. Also, I had the feeling that the individual was not going to risk their position by taking a “quixotic” position.

   For the Record a fellow named Bladwin is the Constitutional candidate, former GA REp. C. McKinny [possible sic] for the Greens, and another fomer GA Rep. Bob Barr and Mr. Root for VP for the Libertarians. You might not see or hear this anywhere else, certainly not in the Times-News.

   It is time to start thinking outside the box friends, because the two major candidates are the worst in years.

2. Dale Hannah
   September 4th, 2008 at 9:22 pm

   Ed,
   Why not have a limited time to campaign, say two weeks, then have the election using popular vote ONLY to elect the President, and the runner-up in the ballotting would be placed in the Vice-Presidental seat. I’m sure the plan would require some refining, but at the very least, it would be more equitable than the present two-party monolopy. I believe the present state of politics shows the self-promoting of the parties a lot more that their best interests for the country in general.
   dh

3. Jim
   September 5th, 2008 at 6:26 am

   Elections are about the money. It is an industry, corrupted by the fact that so much of the money ends up eventually in the hands of media. As a result the media have become directly involved, as the overboard in the tank coverage of the Obama campaign and attempted trashing of Sara Palin have illustrated. Media consulting companies, polling companies, and so on depend upon the never ending campaign process for significant portions of their earnings. The electronic media is the worst, essentially because that is where the majority of the advertising dollars end up. For example there is a reason behind the hard left turn of MSNBC, and the roll out of certain advertising there. What is so frightening is that the average American is not bright enough to either see what is going on, and worse they don’t care.

   Couple that situation with what an old newsman once told me, “the public only has a right to know what I decide to tell them”, and it becomes easy to see why the country is in the situation that it is.

   Unfortunately, the campaign finance reform legislation, partially sponsored by one of this year’s candidates, John McCain, seems to have actually made the situation worse. It would be really interesting if we were to know what he thinks about the current state of campaign financing. Of course the media will never ask that question.

   Personally, I think the campaigns should be limited to three months, and the media forced to provide space to each candidate, to use as they see fit. Media bias in exchange for dollars has to be removed from the system. It has corrupted our system.

4. Ed Tonkin
   September 5th, 2008 at 2:49 pm

   Dale, I like the Electoral College, because I believe that it helps to ameliorate the mob. The USA is not a democracy, it is a republic with limited, enumerated powers given to the Fed’s and larger rights both enumerated and unenumerated rights, against government power, to the people. I believe the College needs to be tinkered with, to make it slightly more reactive to the popular vote.

   Jim, yes it is an industry and a corrupt one. McCain’s reforms were a disaster! My reforms, which are neither new or original, would be the Breathing Americans Electoral Act. You can contribute as much as you want to any political candidate provided you are an American individual and alive. The donation must be given to your web-site, newspaper, and radio & TV station immediately, so you know which “criminals”
   own the candidates.

   In addition two other reforms that would help would be opening up the Ballot access laws and having a realistic Presidential debate schudule, more like the brackets for the NCAA. If your candidates is on the ballots on states that equal 270 electoral votes, then they’re in for the first debate (states do this all the time). After that then have a composite of the Polls see which candidates gather over 5%. Those are in the next debate and 10%, 15%, and finally 20%. But this can only come about if we do away with the corrupt Bi-Partisan Debate Commission and re-instate the League of Women Voters to be incharge of the Presidential Debates.

   I’ve run for office and I know how corrupt the system and media are when it comesto elections. How about ideas to reform the debates and the access laws. Any attorneys out there looking to fight a quixotic battle?

5. john morris
   September 7th, 2008 at 10:14 am

   News Flash– The Bailout Of Fannie Mae is almost official.Read the article on Fannie.

   http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11781.html

   “If you want to know how Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have survived scandal and crisis, consider this: Over the past decade, they have spent nearly $200 million on lobbying and campaign contributions.
   But the political tentacles of the mortgage giants extend far beyond their checkbooks.

   The two government-chartered companies run a highly sophisticated lobbying operation, with deep-pocketed lobbyists in Washington and scores of local Fannie- and Freddie-sponsored homeowner groups ready to pressure lawmakers back home.

   They’ve stacked their payrolls with top Washington power brokers of all political stripes, including Republican John McCain’s presidential campaign manager, Rick Davis; Democrat Barack Obama’s original vice presidential vetter, Jim Johnson; and scores of others now working for the two rivals for the White House.”

   “Fannie and Freddie own or guarantee almost half of the country’s $12 trillion in mortgage debt. Over the past few months, their shares of the housing market have grown as private companies curtailed their mortgage lending in the wake of massive subprime-related losses.

   Critics have long argued that both Fannie and Freddie operated with too small a capital cushion to adequately offset financial risk. But the mortgage giants have consistently beaten back congressional efforts to increase oversight, even After a Major Accounting Scandal in 2003 resulted in a $400 million fine for Fannie.

   Fannie’s government relations operations dramatically expanded in the mid-1990s, when then-CEO Johnson recruited Washington A-listers Robert Zoellick, who served in the Reagan and Bush administrations; Lawrence M. Small, former secretary of the Smithsonian Institution; and William M. Daley, commerce secretary in the CLINTON ADMINISTRATION.

   Johnson spearheaded an aggressive campaign to create a local grass-roots network of company advocates. Under his leadership, Fannie opened more than 50 partnership offices in cities and rural communities. At the same time, the Fannie Mae Foundation, a private nonprofit financed by the mortgage giant, contributed generously to local charities, arts institutions and housing organizations, giving Fannie influence in lawmakers’ home districts.”

   Jamie S. Gorelick, deputy attorney general in the Clinton administration and a chief policy adviser to Hillary Rodham Clinton, is rumored to be a possible attorney general in an Obama administration. She was vice chairman of Fannie Mae and sat on its board of directors.”

   The article goes on to describe Fannie’s close ties to a number of McCain advisors and funraisers also. But—as far as I know, absolutely no Democrat ever criticized either Fannie or Freddie for the way they did business or tried to limit them in any way.

   Some estimates put the potential cost to taxpayers at over 2 TRILLION DOLLARS. The GSE’s were always really government agencies and would never have been able to do what they did without the implicit guarantee of the federal government but the government never really told taxpayers this. In fact government accounting is based on B.S. like this, because if the true costs of it’s programs and extent of it’s debt were known, taxpayers and investors would faint.

   As far as I know, there are no calls for congressional investigations.

   PERHAPS, THIS IS WHY?

   http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/07/top-senate-recipients-of-fanni.html

   1. Dodd, Christopher J S D-CT $133,900
   2. Kerry, John S D-MA $111,000
   3. Obama, Barack S D-IL $105,849
   4. Clinton, Hillary S D-NY $75,550
   5. Kanjorski, Paul E H D-PA $65,500
   6. Bennett, Robert F S R-UT $61,499
   7. Johnson, Tim S D-SD $61,000
   8. Conrad, Kent S D-ND $58,991
   9. Davis, Tom H R-VA $55,499
   10. Bond, Christopher S ‘Kit’ S R-MO $55,400
   11. Bachus, Spencer H R-AL $55,300
   12. Shelby, Richard C S R-AL $55,000
   13. Emanuel, Rahm H D-IL $51,750
   14. Reed, Jack S D-RI $50,750
   15. Carper, Tom S D-DE $44,389
   16. Frank, Barney H D-MA $40,100
   17. Maloney, Carolyn B H D-NY $38,750
   18. Bean, Melissa H D-IL $37,249
   19. Blunt, Roy H R-MO $36,500
   20. Pryce, Deborah H R-OH $34,750
   21. Miller, Gary H R-CA $33,000
   22. Pelosi, Nancy H D-CA $32,750
   23. Reynolds, Tom H R-NY $32,700
   24. Hoyer, Steny H H D-MD $30,500
   25. Hooley, Darlene H D-OR $28,750

   Includes contributions from PACs and individuals.
   2008 cycle totals based on data downloaded from the
   Federal Election Commission on June 30, 2008.

   So what’s my point? Well, a massive government program has just imploded(well actually still in the process)in a vast scandal but we are not supposed to notice this as we move on to the next pet collectivist project.