Another danger of straight ticket voting is that you might unknowingly vote for a candidate whose views are diametrically opposed to your own. The term "RINO" has, of course, been bandied about for years, but there are also "DINO's" - folks running as Dems but holding far-right views. It behooves us all, no matter where we are on the political spectrum, to learn everything we can about all the candidates, and to refrain from voting for someone we know nothing about simply because they are running under a particular banner. ...(full comment)
Van, most of us have known that you and BPR are not the same person. One thing that I've always respected you for is that you've always used your real name. BTW, I had occasion to meet one of your kids, and based on what I saw, you and Mrs. Van are excellent parents. ...(full comment)
What I really love is reading the comments below that are obviously being generated by the New Hampshire State Republican committee.
Scott Brown is most disingenuous empty suit to be running for any office since Mitt Romney. It's funny that Scott is seeming to try and portray himself as a New Hampshire native, he basically grew up, was educated and spent his whole life working and living in Massachusetts until someone decided to bankroll his campaign in New Hampshire.
His ads being run against Jeanne Shaheen are in many cases outright lies and the truth is no where to be found in them. Since Brown was booted out of the senate in Massachusetts he's spent his time as a lobbyist for special interest that don't have New Hampshire's interest at heart.....Scott will say and do whatever he is told by his backers, and most likely a mouthpiece for the Koch brothers and high paying special interest. ...(full comment)
It's in the downloadable supplementary data--which demonstrates more than just the "appearance" of transparency.http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/media/erl460291datafile.txt ...(full comment)
In response to Steve Duprey's comments, I think the Monitor by and large does a pretty good job allowing those whom it criticizes for their positions on issues to state their case in op-eds. A newspaper has a responsibility to serve the public interest--unlike non-journalistic enterprises. By and large, the CM does a decent job at putting the public interest first in its editorials. For those who don't like the CM or its stance, there is another paper downriver that offers a reliably different stance on almost any given issue, and a much louder voice. And is in the opinion of many far more slanted in its editorial policies than is the CM. On the "free speech" issue, Duprey has it wrong--just like the Supreme Court did, when it equated speech with money in the Citizens United decision. Who speaks for the public interest? Those with more money have more speech, and can and will drown out those who speak for the public interest, who don't have the deep pockets of self-interested corporations. They may not do it in one or two or even three election cycles, but the Kochs and their dark money fellows are playing a long game, and know that their misinformation machine will in the long run subvert the electoral process, and hijack the levers of political power. ...(full comment)
Mark, I would love that - ALL superpacs. But I think Steve Duprey has a good point, too. Refusing to run the superpac ads might run afoul of the first amendment. It's a real dilemma and I don't see any viable solutions. ...(full comment)
Thanks anyway, but I already saw this link- you have to know the title and author of the paper, so this link gives you nothing you don't already know. It is not a list you can scan down. It gives Cook the appearance of transparency without actually being transparent. ...(full comment)