Dan Wasserman by Dan Wasserman
- August 20, 2009
- From Beginning
- Previous feature
- Show Calendar
- Next feature
- Current
Editorials A-Z Navigation
Kerry Waghorn by Kerry Waghorn
Signe Wilkinson by Signe WilkinsonAbout Dan Wasserman
Dan Wasserman of The Boston Globe is one of America's most refreshing editorial cartoonists. His visual skits - sharp, sly, humorous and memorable, choreographed in one to six frames - show no mercy.
© 2009 Universal Press Syndicate - All Rights Reserved.
Comments (25) Jump to Comments Form
oldlegodad
said,
3 months ago
Not yet ,dear delusional T¿rd.
ynnek58 said, 3 months ago
money talks, and incumbents got it in spades.
Another good reason for NATIONAL term limits (doesn’t work unless it applies across the board).
David
said,
3 months ago
Experts…ha!
Ex: a has-been
-pert: a drip under pressure.
Okay so this week we have covered the healthcare and climate bag of goods our government is trying to sell us.
They’ve already sold us a bridge so next they’ll try to sell snow to Alaska, rain to Seattle, heat to Phoenix and hurricanes to Florida.
HUMPHRIES
said,
3 months ago
ynnek, term limits ? What would all you wingnutz do then … uh gee who was that South Carolina Senator who finally had his term in office end a while back ?
GNWachs
said,
3 months ago
Humphries
Can’t tell if you are for or against term limits. If you are for them, then join me in Term Limits.org. It is another libertarian leaning group. US Term Limits.
fennec said, 3 months ago
The answer is not necessarily term limits, but educating the voters to demand performance from their representatives, etc. Seems as if it could be counter-productive to get rid of everybody just when they’ve (finally) learned how to do the job. You want your physician to be the kid who just got out of internship or an experienced practitioner?
dtroutma said, 3 months ago
What is becoming clearer ever day is that the Republicans have begun the 2010 campaigns already, I know, what’s new about that, but the anger and lies IS their strategy, via Rove. As to term limits, maybe 12 years is enough to learn how to count the proceeds in your campaign fund and move on?
GNWachs
said,
3 months ago
dtroutma
If you really follow politics you will know what you said is true but only 40%. Move-on, Acorn, Unions etc are already into the perpetual election campaigning. Look it up, they don’t even try and hide it. and they are far better at it than the Republicans.
“It’s a glorious time to be a Democrat if you’re hoping for some serious advocacy action from the nation’s monied liberal establishments.
Through the first half of 2009, left-leaning political action committees have obliterated their right-leaning competition in spending, a Center for Responsive Politics analysis of federal campaign finance data indicates.
ActBlue headlines the list, having spent more than $8.45 million between January and June.
It’s followed by abortion rights organization EMILY’s List ($5.43 million); Moveon.org ($5.2 million); the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees ($3.82 million) and Service Employees International Union Local 1999 ($3.47 million).
Not until 6th place does a conservative group crop up – the National Republican Trust PAC, which has spent $2.59 million this year, through June 30.
$ Spent, Jan. 1 to June 30
ActBlue Democratic/Liberal 8,457,100
EMILY’s List Women’s Issues 5,426,053
Moveon.org Democratic/Liberal 5,195,661
American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees Public Sector Unions 3,817,613
Service Employees Intl Union Local 1999 Misc Unions 3,468,088
National Republican Trust PAC Republican/Conservative 2,595,262
National Assn of Letter Carriers Public Sector Unions 2,343,936
Teamsters Union Transportation Unions 2,260,364
Presidential Inaugural Cmte 2009 Democratic/Liberal 2,057,850
Life & Liberty PAC Abortion Policy/Pro-Life 2,042,677
Lyndon LaRouche PAC Democratic/Liberal 2,040,840
Operating Engineers Union Building Trade Unions 1,946,773
Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Industrial Unions 1,867,646
American Assn for Justice Lawyers/Law Firms 1,783,394
United Auto Workers Industrial Unions 1,640,693
AT&T Inc Telephone Utilities 1,584,017
HILLPAC (Hillary Clinton’s PAC) Leadership PACs 1,520,007
Free & Strong America PAC Republican/Conservative 1,420,780
Honeywell International Misc Manufac.& Distributing 1,397,144
Service Employees International Union Misc Unions 1,370,928
From Wiki:
“MoveOn was criticized by a Jewish advocacy group, among others, when a member-submitted ad which drew parallels between President George W. Bush and Adolf Hitler was submitted to their online ad contest “Bush in 30 Seconds”. The ad was part of an online MoveOn-sponsored contest, “Bush in 30 Seconds”, during the 2004 presidential election, in which members were invited to create and submit political ads challenging President Bush and his administration.[12][13] The advertisement was quickly pulled off the website.[12]
dtroutma said, 3 months ago
A factor more continuous than PAC activities might be the role of “think tanks” like AEI, Cascade Policy Institute, and others that are constantly sending out “information” via editorials, letters to the editor, and articles that are hardly unbiased. Yes, campaigning is constant, and far to costly. But of course we know how much love their is for public financing of campaigns.
“The business of business is business”, and politics.
ynnek58 said, 3 months ago
Term limits are more about limiting the time a politician has to entrench himself into the corrupt machine than their performance exactly. You can have performance, which is measured by how much your guy can wrest out of the general pot compared to the next guy (such as Kennedy), but still get the corruption and power brokering in influence peddling that can be exploited more and more as time goes on – not to mention just working the system skills, which should be kept to a minimum. The concept of citizen representation form amongst the populace has been replaced by career politicians that have never had a job, and never produced anything for the economy; which, IMO, makes them unsuitable for representing anyone. 2 terms is enough, then send them packing.
motivemagus said, 3 months ago
Hang on just a second before we excoriate every reelected politician. Politics is the art of the possible, as Bismarck said. It is worth noting that “possible” becomes more likely when you have people who are experienced in how to negotiate, discuss, and compromise.
The Founding Fathers deliberately allowed for the Senate to have longer (and multiple) terms to give them more stability and independence in opinion, so they could use their own judgment. As Edmund Burke said: “A representative owes the People not only his industry, but his judgment, and he betrays them if he sacrifices it to their opinion.” The House, by contrast, is designed to respond quickly to the will of the people. Both matter. Note that Kennedy and Hatch managed to collaborate on bills – something that sounds utterly impossible when you think of the polarization in recent politics, but it’s not only possible but essential in the Senate. Otherwise, we get stuck with a Congress full of one-time fanatics with no motive to get along with anyone, and if you think we have gridlock now, just wait until term limits take hold.
Frankly, term limits are a statement that the people are untrustworthy to elect their representatives. If you think that, say so.
GNWachs
said,
3 months ago
Th politicans have changed the rules of the game. the number one object of a senator or congressman is to get re-elected. They pass bills legally rigging the elections. Free mailings, free TV etc. the #1 incumbent reelection law is campaign finance. It was specifically designed to help get the ins re-elected.
churchillwasright said, 3 months ago
Errr… who when asked (9/07) on a questionnaire from the Midwest Democracy Network whether he would “participate in the presidential public financing system” if his “major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign,” checked the box marked “yes,” then outlined his vision for the 2008 contest. “In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election,” he wrote. “My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election… If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.”
And then opted out. Who was that again? Give me a minute…
oldlegodad
said,
3 months ago
99.9% of politicians are:
POST TURTLE—While suturing a cut on the hand of a 75 year old rancher, whose hand was caught in a gate while working cattle, the doctor struck up a conversation and the topic got around to one of the political candidates. The rancher said,”Well you know, that candidate is a ‘Post Turtle’ .”
Not being familiar with the term, the docter asked what a “post turtle” was. The rancher said, “When you’re driving down a country road you come across a fence post with a turtle balance on top, that’s a ‘post turtle’.”
The rancher saw a puzzeled look on the doctors face so he continued to explain with his obvious wisdom collected over time. “You know they didn’t get up there by themsrves, they don’t belong up there, and they don’t know what to do while there up there, and you wonder what kind of dummy put them up there to begin with.”
ynnek58 said, 3 months ago
motivemagus
There is a presupposition there that:
1) The politician will be acting for the good of the people he represents
2) There’s no corruption or influence peddling going on behind closed doors.
I think GNWachs’s point about their number one job is to get reelected is probably closer to the truth than any of us would like to see. Right now we have a surplus of self-interested self centered nare-do-wells. And about the mountains of cash being shuffled in, on, around, and through the halls of congress are simply staggering.
I frankly wish we’d have a little more gridlock. My favorite is now is a Democrat president and a Republican congress – it never worked so well. Clinton empathized and felt everybody’s pain, and those mean Republicans didn’t want to spend any money. The Republicans had the majority, but couldn’t override the president, so they actually had to work to get done together what little they did together (which really boiled down to a few really necessary things (like it should be!)). Ah, those were the days.
GNWachs
said,
3 months ago
Gridlock! The Libertarian dream.
Except the Democratic President gets to appoint Judges.
Corosive Frog said, 3 months ago
GN, where do all these organisations get all that money anyway?
motivemagus said, 3 months ago
Change the financing system, then, not term limits.
and ynnek, yeah, I hear you, but you know, I’d like to believe some people might have some positive interests in mind. I agree that people focus on re-election, but that would be true if you were a moralist hoping to keep your principles present in government! You have to be in the game to play, right?
I spoke with a guy once who had been in the Massachusetts state legislature for years and in his later years decided to get an academic degree and do research (I know, only in Massachusetts) into how committed local politicians listening to the community get sucked into supporting private interests. His view was very interesting to me: he was always looking for good information by which to make decisions, and which he had no time or staff to do in sufficient depth himself on many important issues. Turns out a lot of industries do excellent summaries of relevant, apparently solid data, as well as having inside information, and have people who offer lots of their time to help the legislator make sense of complex issues. Sure, it’s slanted data, but not obviously, and it’s often so good people start depending on it (imagining that they are correcting the bias in it), and begin to feel grateful to these guys who make it easier on them to make good decisions for their constituents…except they have lost sight of the fact that they are no longer in direct touch with them and are much closer to the lobbyist. This guy was really concerned with that, and I believed him.
ynnek58 said, 3 months ago
motivemagus
Yeah, I’m sure somewhere there’s someone who cares – thy just haven been in any States where I got to vote. As for the studies, you’re right, they were thorough and biased alright, but you left out the part where it comes with a Ziploc bag of cash (Just ask Jefferies what he’s stowed in his feezer – what was that man thinking!)).
GNWachs
Yeah, that might be a problem. OK, how about we go with that cycle 8 on, 4 off, and both sides get the same number of appointment (they just alternate back and forth). I’m feeling it…
GNWachs
said,
3 months ago
CorrosiveFrog
There is a lt of liberal money out there.
Trial lawyers give millions not necessarily because they are liberal but self interested.
The unions are major liberal contributors and the results are obvious. Automobile giveaway. Since the recession began there have been 6.9 million jobs lost in the private sector. In that exact same time frame government employment has gone up 110,000
Hollywood and the entertainment world.
The George Soros type.
Plenty of money out there.
motivemagus said, 2 months ago
GNWachs, pretend to be balanced once in a while, eh? Corporations have WAY more money. And there are plenty of records out there to prove it. And most of the vocal opponents of government-supported healthcare insurance are funded by Big Pharma and insurance companies.
GNWachs
said,
2 months ago
motivemagus:
Before you post may I suggest you read the entire thread. Above I posted the actual dollars given by groups. The highest 5 contributions were given by liberal groups and far far outweighed conservative contributions. You live in a land where the liberals and the MSM always cry poor us but taint true any longer. New world.
motivemagus said, 2 months ago
Did read it. You’re including groups which I don’t count as mainstream liberal (LaRouche, c’mon!), for one thing.
But more importantly, those are the highest ranked PACs rather than the total amount given to politicians – working from the other side, I’d like to see how many donations are taken by politicians, and from whom. I don’t disagree that there is a lot of money out there, but it is on both sides. Corporations don’t need to use PACs.
GNWachs
said,
2 months ago
In 2008 for the presidential election more corporate dollars were given to Obama than to McCain.
At first that would seem to be a shock but as you think about it dollars are a seat at the table. they thought Obama would win and wanted their views to be heard.
MM In your post above you conveniently skip by the top 5 donors, all certified well known liberal groups, and then comment on LaRouche #11. Once again bypassing 4 more mainstream liberal groups Come’on. You are better than that.
motivemagus said, 2 months ago
GNW, I didn’t say I disagreed completely; I just think you’re overstating the case. Each successive post of yours seems to dial it back a bit, however.
Actually, even corporate donors have a habit of donating to both parties, and more to the one they expect to win. It’s an investment.