Comments on: Substance Matters: Presidential Politics In The Age Of Gloss

By: ColleenaDailyLurker

ColleenaDailyLurker — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 03:44:51 +0000

Christy,

I know this is deep in EPU land but I think Edwards may be flying pretty well under the radar. I may be just be in a group of people that like Edwards but considering the egos invloved I think there might be some hope. The big outlets do not even say his name and he is and has been within the margin of error on every poll tha has any meaning in Iowa. His volunteers have been calling at least once a week even though I have told them I will definitely caucus for him.

By: MarkH

MarkH — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 02:56:54 +0000

My point is that belief are better based on “data” rather than the “common wisdom”.

Okay, let me be clear.

She tried to do health care reform and failed.
Next!

By: MarkH

MarkH — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 02:55:04 +0000

Democrats aren’t in a rut, they are in a sink hole.

Or a cave in.

You’re just being far too negative.

Democrats — The Party of Spelunkers!

———

Well, enough negativity. What we need is someone with a great vision of what American can become and the intellect and energy to make it happen. That’s why I’m voting for Edwards.

By: zeno2vonnegut

zeno2vonnegut — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 01:50:49 +0000

Another site for an ideas primary is http://glassbooth.org/ . If a community such as FDL’s were to individually assign points among issues and indicate agreement/disagreement on 20 policy questions based on the point assignment, the candidate ratings could be aggregated into exactly such a ideas primary. It’s probably a feasible method and the site seems accurate. I think I’m very liberal and the 3 candidates who most closely matched my views were in order: Kucinich, Gravel, and Edwards. My 3 move-to-Canada candidates were Giuliani, Tancredo, and Hunter.

By: cognitorex

cognitorex — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 00:02:35 +0000

Make Corporate Tax Breaks a Competition (Woot)
Corporations thirty years ago or so contributed over twenty percent of the tax revenues collected by our IRS. That number is now only seven percent.
Presumably this has come about in part because of the modern ability with computers to instantly reallocate costs, profit centers and scheme like deductions on a global scale.
It has also come about as the hordes from K Street each win a tax break here and a tax break there from their future brethren now sitting in the legislatures.
My proposal is a variable corporate tax rate.
First, set the percentage of total USA taxes required from the corporate sector (for example let’s say 12%). Then on a past year or past quarter rolling basis inform the corporate tax payers what their tax rate is; the rate necessary to meet the 12% goal.

Doesn’t this seem a fair way (as a citizen) to establish a countervailing power to the hold Corporate America has over the taxing powers, i.e. all legislatures?

If you’re economically geeky you may also appreciate a beautifully humorous scenario unfolding from this plan.

If the total amount of taxes to be paid is a set sum per period, then, when one company or one industry negotiates a large tax reduction this will cause the other corporations and industries to pay additional taxes to meet the set goal. Tax boondoggles become a competitive endeavor with each lobbyist’s gain a loss to a competing K Streeter.

Not only is there a smiley thought in envisioning members of the Armani suit cross my palm with lucre K Streeters being at each others throats as they compete to buy favors but tax cuts would have to pass a rigorous economic cost benefit analysis to meet approval.

Well, gee, that’s kinda funny too and somewhat novel.

(Next week: “Capping Pork Proposal defeated by chorus of squeals”)

Labels: business, capping tax breaks, corporate taxes, K Street, money, Pork

# posted by cognitorex @ 12/14/2007 2 comments links to this post

By: jayrosen

jayrosen — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 22:34:06 +0000

Thanks for this, Christy.

Hugh @28 says: “An idea race? Can’t Rosen just say that he would like to see more content in election campaigns? It would be clearer and avoid the same gimmickry which he is criticizing.”

No, Hugh, I can’t. Why? Because I am not simply saying that I would like to see more content in election campaigns. If you click a link and read the post, you may discover as much.

A little background: As a press critic I had said things like you said–less horse race! more serious content!–for several cycles– 96, 00, 04. But I noticed that even when journalists themselves complained about the horse race approach to covering campaigns, they couldn’t get beyond it. The idea of “the race” is too deeply held, to useful, too convenient, too dominant to be dislodged.

So, I thought, maybe there is a way to keep the idea of a race, and even the journalist’s favorite question “who’s ahead?” along with their favorite campaign construct, the Frontrunner, but also get reporters to deal with serious problems and pay attention to what the candidates are saying–and especially not saying–as the campaign wears on.

Thus: the idea race, in which a news organization would actually go out on a limb and say who’s ahead in addressing things that matter–war and peace, wealth and poverty, health care, the concentration of power, economic disruption, trade policy, restoring respect for the US around the world–as against polls, ad buys, strategy for winning, endorsements, mistakes and gaffes, which fascinate journalists but leave the rest of us malnourished.

In order to say who’s ahead (and second, third, fourth) in addressing issues that matter, a news organization would also have to decide, “which issues matter?” and this would itself be revealing.

By: petrecca

petrecca — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 22:25:53 +0000

Visualize a Venn Diagram with categories called “Poverty”, “War” and “Environmental Degradation”. The question? How do our political “representatives” act, speak and vote under the overlapping criteria (venn parameters.) Can we know the epistemological biases of our representatives? Yes! We can know the critter by examining the scientific evidence. The difference that makes a difference? Examine the critter and compare to the underlying multiple evidence. Poverty. War. Environmental Degradation. The more things change, plus c’est la même chose.

By: Starbuck

Starbuck — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 21:12:07 +0000

Ooops. Thanks for the link, but I got 404 instead.

Not to worry! Christy pointed me to the proper location (Duh, moi!)

By: cinnamonape

cinnamonape — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 20:35:06 +0000

I didn’t know Rudy was doing that badly in Florida. It makes sense now that Kristol would dismiss him.

Gee, Rudy will have to settle for being a multimillionaire, watching Judy stroll around the house in her tiara, since she won’t be First Lady and get to wear it at official events. Boo hoo.

My guess on this is that a) the NY retiree community in Florida is well aware of Rudy’s dark history; b) Rudy has no appeal to the Republican Christian Fundamentalists (he’s still a papist with three different wives); c) the Cuban American community is not as monolithic as Rudy thought…simply because he’s Catholic and anti-abortion does mean that he can get their votes. Many Cuban Americans are just as sensitive to the anti-Immigrant hysteria as other Hispanic Americans. They also entered the US illegally, although they may have gained asylum status later. They are sensitized to the issues of “anchor kids”, economic refugees, and other immigration issues in ways that other Republicans can’t conceive.

By: cinnamonape

cinnamonape — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 20:23:34 +0000

I read somewhere that the non-responsiveness factor is as high as 70% for those who are on the pollsters call list. IOW even after repeated calls these folks aren’t responding. I suspect that this isn’t because they don’t intend to participate…it’s because they have been polled once and are tired of being repeatedly polled (in Iowa and New Hampshire). Thus one is likely to get those who are real manic advocates willing to answer all the polls, plus an occasional oddball misanthrope who will say they support a contrarian position.

In any case I don’t think that those who opt out vs. those who respond to every survey are at all random.

Second, there is the Cell Phone Factor which despite the special pleading from the pollsters that this has no impact…I say phooey! If you actually did find it relevant you would cover it up since it would utterly destroy your system. BTW if it makes no difference then why are these firms trying to develop methods of making cellphone surveys at some great expense?

PS Can’t figure out why the link above doesn’t work~ coming out with odd prefixes and suffixes with double “http%22″