MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus on Twitter · Facebook · Flickr · Newsletters · Instagram 
Friday, August 1, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 68.0° F  Fair
Collapse Photo Bar

Cieslewicz: "My party lost because other guy got more votes"

Please limit discussion in this area to local and state politics.

Cieslewicz: "My party lost because other guy got more votes"

Postby Bludgeon » Tue Jun 12, 2012 6:26 am

Dave wrote:This is important, because to the extent that we allow ourselves to fool ourselves that we lost because the other guy had more money (he did, but almost everybody had their minds made up long before the air war started), or our candidate was weak (he wasn't, Tom Barrett was our best shot), or Republican voting procedure changes suppressed turnout (which was massive), or the Koch brothers did it (these guys have been blamed for everything from high gas prices to the Brewers' streak of injures, but they’re not that powerful), than we excuse ourselves the necessity of confronting our own unpopularity.

http://www.thedailypage.com/daily/artic ... b73dfae4ed

Think that's the first thing I've ever liked that he's said. To be fair a lot of Democrats I know have said as much, though many still prefer the ostrich technique. I am most tired of hearing about the "Koch Brothers" - in general.
Bludgeon
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:27 am

Re: Cieslewicz: "My party lost because other guy got more vo

Postby Igor » Tue Jun 12, 2012 7:56 am

That was one of the more intelligent pieces I have seen on this situation. Minor quibble in that Barrett was the best shot -willing to run- but otherwise, spot on.
Igor
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1581
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2002 11:48 pm

Re: Cieslewicz: "My party lost because other guy got more vo

Postby Twinner » Tue Jun 12, 2012 8:09 am

I thought he was moving to Portland. Maybe that was wishful thinking.
Twinner
Forum Addict
 
Posts: 300
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2004 7:03 pm
Location: East Sieeeda

Re: Cieslewicz: "My party lost because other guy got more vo

Postby johnschultz » Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:16 am

He is moving to Portland, but via bicycle. That takes awhile, and it takes several trips. We know he's got a lot of baggage!
johnschultz
Member
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat May 12, 2012 1:27 pm

Re: Cieslewicz: "My party lost because other guy got more vo

Postby Meade » Tue Jun 12, 2012 11:56 am

This is both poetic and politically astute:
I would take a Johnsonville brat from the hand of a Koch brother if it were offered with the proper condiments and a good beer". - Dave Cieslewicz, attempting to lead Wisconsin Democrats away from oblivion.
Meade
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3341
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:26 pm

Re: Cieslewicz: "My party lost because other guy got more vo

Postby pjbogart » Tue Jun 12, 2012 12:14 pm

I think Dave needs to check his head. The suggestion that Democrats are worrying too much about corporate influence in politics is reckless, at best.

There is no greater issue facing our nation. To minimize it and make light of it does us no favors.
pjbogart
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6118
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 4:57 pm

Re: Cieslewicz: "My party lost because other guy got more vo

Postby Henry Vilas » Tue Jun 12, 2012 12:29 pm

pjbogart wrote:I think Dave needs to check his head. The suggestion that Democrats are worrying too much about corporate influence in politics is reckless, at best.

There is no greater issue facing our nation. To minimize it and make light of it does us no favors.

I agree. So did Teddy Roosevelt a hundred years ago and Jefferson over two hundred years ago.

...our government, National and State, must be freed from the sinister influence or control of special interests.
...
The Constitution guarantees protection to property, and we must make that promise good. But it does not give the right of suffrage to any corporation.

The true friend of property, the true conservative, is he who insists that property shall be the servant and not the master of the commonwealth; who insists that the creature of man’s making shall be the servant and not the master of the man who made it. The citizens of the United States must effectively control the mighty commercial forces which they have called into being.

There can be no effective control of corporations while their political activity remains.
...
It is necessary that laws should be passed to prohibit the use of corporate funds directly or indirectly for political purposes; it is still more necessary that such laws should be thoroughly enforced.

-T.R.

(Teddy was very long winded, so I just quoted the relevant parts of his New Nationalism speech, but it is worth an entire read. See the link above.)
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 19604
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: Cieslewicz: "My party lost because other guy got more vo

Postby Meade » Tue Jun 12, 2012 12:37 pm

pjbogart wrote:...corporate influence...no greater issue...

pj, your criticism is belied by your selective hand-wringing. The influence of corporations you don't disapprove of does not earn your opprobrium - only corporations you don't approve of.
Meade
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3341
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:26 pm

Re: Cieslewicz: "My party lost because other guy got more vo

Postby Henry Vilas » Tue Jun 12, 2012 12:39 pm

So Meade, do you agree with Citizens United? Teddy is rolling in his grave over that one.
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 19604
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: Cieslewicz: "My party lost because other guy got more vo

Postby Meade » Tue Jun 12, 2012 12:57 pm

The question should be this: Did you find acceptable McCain-Feingold's restrictions on free speech?

What part of the Citizen's United do you disapprove, Mr. Henry? The part that allows unlimited contributions to political candidates by corporations and unions? Or just corporations?
Meade
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3341
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:26 pm

Re: Cieslewicz: "My party lost because other guy got more vo

Postby fisticuffs » Tue Jun 12, 2012 1:01 pm

The part that allows unlimited contributions to political candidates by corporations and unions? Or just corporations?


My problem is the "unlimited" part. Also the anonymity of the donors. I think it a company is going to spend millions to buy politicians you should have to deal with the possible consumer backlash of that action.
fisticuffs
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 7786
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 2:49 pm
Location: Slightly outside of Madison

Re: Cieslewicz: "My party lost because other guy got more vo

Postby Henry Vilas » Tue Jun 12, 2012 1:08 pm

Meade wrote:What part of the Citizen's United do you disapprove, Mr. Henry? The part that allows unlimited contributions to political candidates by corporations and unions? Or just corporations?

Both. Neither has the sufferage, so neither should be involved in campaigns or elections (as retired Supreme Court Justice Stevens asserts). That is also what T.R. said and I am in agreement. But if corporations are allowed to do so, then the playing field should be level. The push to destroy unions gives all the power to corporate interests.
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 19604
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: Cieslewicz: "My party lost because other guy got more vo

Postby Meade » Tue Jun 12, 2012 1:20 pm

Along with fisticuffs, you fell into my trap, Mr. H. Anyone who has read the the Citizen's United decision (or even the Wikipedia entry, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission), knows that the decision does not allow unlimited contributions to political candidates by corporations and unions. In fact, Citizen's United keeps in place "the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties, which remain illegal in races for federal office."
Meade
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3341
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:26 pm

Re: Cieslewicz: "My party lost because other guy got more vo

Postby Meade » Tue Jun 12, 2012 1:23 pm

May I assume then, by your failure to answer my question: Did you find acceptable McCain-Feingold's restrictions on free speech? that you did, in fact, find those restrictions acceptable?
Meade
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3341
Joined: Fri Apr 23, 2010 6:26 pm

Re: Cieslewicz: "My party lost because other guy got more vo

Postby fisticuffs » Tue Jun 12, 2012 1:24 pm

Along with fisticuffs, you fell into my trap


Your trap is a hell of a lot more comfortable than the giant ass loophole you and these billionaire donors have been crawling around in. You're ignoring "direct contributions" in order to score a zinger. Shocking.

Did you find acceptable McCain-Feingold's restrictions on free speech?


Money is not speech. McCain-Feingold placed restrictions on money.
fisticuffs
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 7786
Joined: Sat Jul 24, 2004 2:49 pm
Location: Slightly outside of Madison

Next

Return to Local Politics & Government

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: wack wack and 3 guests

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar