dayman

B/c it just is. Which is fine, of course they need to take that soundbite and run with it. His message is that all things are possible based on the strength of the middle class as America's base. Not that all things are possible through government. The GOP will take the other reasonable position that our wonder is more b/c of those who strive/sour and they pull the rest up...and it's them that provide the value. Those are the two narratives. Obama's narrative that he is running on, and that he was speaking about is not that everybody owes the government. GOP can and should jump on the sound byte now, but over time it's just a soundbyte...and it doesn't have the staying power that the vilification of Romney's tax issues has if in fact Romney continues to not release them. This general clashing of the middle class v. successful class will carry through the election b/c it's the narrative they'll both frame...it's what Obama (and probably Romney) will run on. But the "all things through government" isn't something Obama is actually running on or will go around saying in the future where as Romney indicates (as of now anyway) that he won't release the additional tax information. Therefore one is a sound byte to jump on, the other appears to be a lingering problem that Romney won't address. Now maybe he will address it. Who knows. All I'm saying is sound byte not framing his pitch perfectly v. not actually doing something ... the not actually doing something is more substantial in terms of political ammo w/ staying power.

B/c that is a mischaracterization of what Obama was saying. Which is totally fine mischaracterizations fly on both sides it's valid political ammo...but Romney's nondisclosure (be it legit to attack or not...once again this is all political) is not a mischaracterization. Now the substance of what he's pitching is still something the GOP can attack, the more middle class pitch and that the base of America is where what makes it work as opposed to those who ultimately succeed. They can and will still attack that narrative but Obama is running with that narrative. It's less substantive in terms of it's political ammo b/c he wasn't actually trying to say they owe success to the government and will correct/be sure to say pitch his middle class value angle more delicately in the future. Where as Romney may never release any tax information.

This whole Bushcuts for under 250 but not over is political. That much is clear to all. I doubt it will end that way regardless of who is president come next year. But it might. In either event...nothing will be done before the election anyway.

That was clearly a mistake by Obama and has given Mitt a one ledge of many he needs to pull himself past this. At least and opening to try to change the dialogue and adopt a new narrative. That said a it's not nearly as substantive as Romney's actual nondisclosure (whether relevant or not in anybody's opinion) so it wont' completely dwarf it. But it is a classic example of one slip up in the millions of speeches both candidates give provides momentum to change a bad situation...long race etc. This may well be the theme at the convention which carries through the rest of the election. "Economy bad, Obama doesn't celebrate entrepreneurial America so how can he fix it?."

Don't you think your question is basically absurd? It seems first off that smart people, people with PHDs and Nobel Prizes can't even agree on the past, let alone what will work in the future. Most of them agree that to do nothing would have been disastrous so that is just absurd IMO. So nobody, not Obama, not Romney, not George Bush (who now has a book out now about how to obtain 4% growth lol) has the magic solution. It's just not true (contrary to what the Romney campaign would have you believe...he ain't the magic man). The general idea that the stimulus didn't help...or the bailout sucked...you can pull articles from wherever you want...people like the bailout...and a lot of people think the stimulus helped and could have helped much more if it was larger. The most important thing to note is there is disagreement and anyone can pull anything they want from any source and just say "see, see" and the discussion just gets bogged down. It's great to talk about and important for the country to work out and be informed about to vote...but anyone that thinks they "know what's up" is just not realizing they don't and nobody does. But that's all pre-2010...you know before every single bill of any meaningful note is all the sudden filibustered and obstructed. Before Congress became crazy and started doing nothing but working against the President and itself. Before we insisted on cuts cuts cuts, while still in trouble. Maybe you think that is wise? That really is fair enough, but a lot of other people didn't...and pointing to this is not really excuses or pointing fingers or crying. People who say that just don't understand government. Washington broke down, b/c politicians refused to cooperate. Congress is huge as to what has gone on with the recovery. Are you asking what has Congress done? What has that body's contribution been? Personally, I wouldn't validate anybody on either side of the isle in Congress this next election who isn't trumpeting cooperation and breaking gridlock in the next election w/ my vote. B/c that's crippling the country. What has John Boehner done for the country? Boehner can't keep his own loony Tea Party GOP freshman in line in the House and Obama is supposed to be able lead the Tea Party and the rest of the recently-more-conservatized GOP? These people are basically the Joker (to be like Rush for a moment) sent to create chaos and disrupt all the socialist free-fall-spending policies of Obama (lol yes that is a half-joke so don't go crazy). They aren't working with him...they won't even work with Boehner unless Boehner is sure to not cooperate "too much." All that said, say what you want and this is where we'll probably disagree...Obama did not create or necessitate this Washington environment. This was basically the GOP being pissed that they didn't like what was happening and not handling being in the minority so they did everything they could in the house, filibustered everything they could (record numbers) in the senate, and attacked the President publicly every chance they had. That is what they did as we were coming off a legitimate !@#$ing depression. This is important. Their goal was to make him a 1 term president. And they certainly made damn sure not to cooperate in making him a success during is first term on anything they could control. And all that, considering all that. Considering the dysfunction in Washington coming off the worst economic crisis since the great depression. Considering apparently Obama has a war on business and can't lead his own dick into his wife. Considering apparently the GOP radicalized and went rogue and threw a fit b/c they were in the minority and didn't like it. Considering the Democrats apparently went nuts w/ spending power while at the same time the GOP went nuts about cutting. We still...kind of...ever so slowly...failed to collapse. We still out grew Europe. We still grow in a Global Slowdown and European contraction. Every single recovery is taking longer, and longer, and longer (for reasons outside the scope of this post)...and this one is not exception and it follows a different sort of dip...and damn cliff drop. Considering all this taken together and having an actual realistic outlook on what happened, where we are, where the global economy is, and where we can ACTUALLY go/expect to be and how quickly we can do it...I assert to you that we're not actually doing that terrible. We're not doing well enough to be happy, I'll give you that nobody is. But we aren't dying. No policies for sure would have had us in a better spot (certainly IMO austerity or cuts or nothing during the fall would have had us worse but that's just my opinion). And the real thing to remember is...we had limited policies enacted anyway b/c we went into political gridlock. So the idea that the economy is just SOOOOO terrible...it's overblown. It's nothing to toot your horn about...and sure it's nothing really "to run on" I'll give Romney that. That's true. But it's not the disaster in my eyes everyone thinks it is all things considered. To sum up...I simply ask what the hell are you talking about when you ask "what has Obama done?" Have you been paying attention? What the hell has anyone done, what the hell has happened, where are we, what do you expect, what would you have had him do? What policies could anyone have pushed, passed, and watched heal us all so magically that you condeme Obama for not adopting over the last 3.5 year? Anyway I don't mean that to discount the question (all though it does lol I can't help but be a dick I know)...I'm just saying that represents why I generally just don't like this "Economy not great, Obama what has he done? Elect Romney magic solution man." Just my opinion I'm sure I'm just making excuses or naive or retarded of blah blah...but I would like to hear all you guys opinion on my opinion.

All of the above plus Sunday Shows these last two weeks and particularly Sunday shows this last week (all of them). Even Fox has talked a bit about it and got onto him slightly for it so you know it's bad. It's been MSNBC's main story for a while and Stewart and Cobert killed him on it...I don't watch but I wouldn't be surprised if it doesn't leak over to Saturday Night Live b/c the surrogates and Romney himself are starting to sound a bit Sarah Palin-ish just giving the same non-answer over and over.... All that said it's bad but it's early and it's not like he just got caught in a truck stop bathroom on his knees. The main thing is there's no excuse as I said earlier and also that they just are turning into a comedy show with really doing tons of interviews (him and surrogates) where they just say the same non-answer to questions that while maybe not about the economy (as he would like) are somewhat legitimate.

Well I don't know about if that is necessarily true right now...he may be damned either way and may have calculated he's less damned just not releasing them. My overall point is just that it didn't have to be that way if he planned in advance and he's been running since '07 so I really don't see how he just walked himself into such a predictable hole. You can only talk about the economy so much either way, it may be the main issue but it will never be the only issue...and generally speaking if you get sort of labeled a shifty "vulture capitalist" who is "hiding his taxes" and is "rich and 1% boogeyman" then your speaking on the economy can be marginalized by the whole Obama "middle class built to last/not doing what we did under Bush which is what Romney wants to do/we don't need more of this in charge" type campaign pitch. So it's not as if it's a completely unrelated distraction in the sense that if it's effective it will actually HELP Obama on the economy argument. Polls are the most retarded thing in the world to me but on the Sunday shows I heard some polls that said recently since "taxgate" (lol I'm waiting on someone to call it that in the media) Obama is making grounds in some swing states when asked "who is better for the economy" (and really making grounds overall in Ohio particularly). That just shows the effect this can have not only on Romney but on everything Romney is trying to say/sell. If Romney falls behind in that metric he'll be crushed. Once again I don't put too much stock in polls but taking them for all their worth which is just an indicator of the wind blowing and the effectiveness of current strategy...it suggests Romney is getting hurt by this. In Florida, Obama leads Romney 45 percent to 41 percent, and in Ohio his lead is 47 percent to 38 percent, according to the most recent survey by Quinnipiac University. The two men were essentially tied in both states in a similar survey released at the beginning of May. In Pennsylvania, Obama holds a six point lead over Romney, compared to a nine point lead he held in May. But more Florida voters think Romney will do better on the economy than Obama, though they are tied when it comes to which candidate voters think will improve their own bottom line. Ohio voters give Obama the edge on the economy and think his re-election would improve their economic future compared to a Romney presidency. Voters in Pennsylvania are essentially split between Obama and Romney when it comes to their ability to lift the national economy and their own financial future. http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/ballot-2012/2012/06/27/poll-obama-extends-lead-in-key-states Romney would do a better job on the economy, 46 percent of Florida voters say, while 44 percent say Obama would do a better job. Obama would be better for their personal economic future, 46 percent of voters say, compared to 45 percent for Romney. Voters say 47 - 42 percent, however, that Obama would do a better job on the economy than Romney and say 47 - 42 percent that the president would be better for their personal economic future. Pennsylvania voters split 44 - 44 percent on who would do a better job on the economy and 44 - 43 percent on who would be better for them personally. http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/presidential-swing-states-(fl-oh-and-pa)/release-detail?ReleaseID=1767

In the context of the political discussion it all just comes back to Romney inexplicably not being ready. Honestly if I were a big time GOP supporter or wanted Romney to win or Obama to be beaten at all costs I would be legitimately pissed at him. This is a guy who has basically been running for President since...2007? At least as far back as 2007? And his taxes are ready and released at least since he started running? Why wasn't anything blatantly toxic (assuming there is something) cleaned up AT LEAST when you KNEW YOU WERE RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT. He should have had the last 6 or so years ready and put out long ago and taken any hit for that in the primaries and earlier than this if there was going to be one. Does that mean he should have not made money for the last 6 years? Of course not. But clean up the off short accounts for that time period, not b/c they're evil but b/c you are running for president. Make sure that whatever your finances are you are paying some income tax hopefully at least 15% each of those years (not saying he wasn't we don't know). Just generally have it ready to go and out in advance. Then if people wanted more info about your past dating back to when you were at Bain, etc...you can say "look I gave 6 years. Have some Presidential candidates given more? Yes. But I gave 6. And that's enough." He would be a lot better off than where he is now if that was the case. And since he was running...that entire time...there is no excuse from a political strategy for him not to do this. He would still catch heat for info on his finances in his Bain years and info taht shows what/where he was during those '90s year and particularly the 98-'02 years but at least he would have a decent showing of recent taxes. It just seem sort of stunning (worst word would be arrogant) that he let become such an issue that has circulated for this long and is only getting worse. His surrogates on this issue sound pathetic also now they have nothing to say that even remotely satisfies the questions...a lot of Republican pundits/figures are saying basically "for Gods sake put more out and put them out quickly to move on" too. This is a self inflicted wound. Say what you want about team Obama but this isn't really political brilliance. It's well executed for sure, but it's sort of right out of the book of basic politics.

In any event "breaking news" reports 3 members of high level gov't killed including Assad's brother-in-law. Leon Panetta says he's concerned about violence "rapidly spinning out of control." They have chemical weapons compounds. As we have seen with a lot of these dictators...when stuff gets too bad and they're in too deep they can lose their minds. The human rights issues are not to be trivialized. They are real. They are not a cover for a "western conspiracy" as you think. No way Assad keeps power for another week with out a HUGE escalation in violence. He could go insane. Right now he's in Saddam mode sitting around knowing he's done, waiting to be bombed, probably going paranoid, angry, cornered, and still in control of an army and some chemical weapons. (that's not to imply he's literally cornered as of yet...but you get the point...this **** is reaching a tipping point) http://www.sacbee.com/2012/07/18/4639238/panetta-violence-in-syria-spinning.html

Meh, not really. Not nearly as much as a lot of European countries. I for one love Indian food? Are Indians Arabs? I don't know... ...maybe? If so Bobby Jindal? Will that let us off the hook if Romney taps him?

But what do you think about my response to your accusations that this is all about Israel and Saudi Arabia? The entire world is concerned about massacres, as are we. We didn't create the situation at all, "but for" the domestic revolt and subsequent crack down and massacres there would be no issue. As such, there is...almost the entire world takes issue with it...we take the same side as them...for substantially the same reasons as I see it. To assume that we are taking sides in this conflict to meddle in regional politics under these circumstances is bizzare...and even assuming it is true we are still only engaged in diplomacy anyway working within the channels of the international community and refusing to go in and rampage around without the consensus approval of the UN. This is not the example you are looking for to make your point, that's all I'm saying. This is not Iraq. This is not Afghanistan v. the Soviets. This is nothing like that at all. This is plain and simple and Syrian civil war in which the international community is concerned about human rights violations and we are working within the legitimate global channels to encourage the organization to stop bloodshed. That's it. There's really nothing as I see it that is wrong with that. You would argue simply b/c we are taking a side? Everyone takes a side. Everyone debates and says "yes we should do something (be it extreme like going in or passive like some sanctions)" or "no we're going to let it be." The only reason Russia and China take the approach they take is b/c in Russia's case they were loose allies who relied on Assad's regime for various things and in China's case b/c they don't want people meddling in their human rights issues so they will turn a blind eye to others so as not to set precedent. But the rest of the global community agrees...while not on every tactical point...that something (whatever that something may be) needs to be done to encourage the timely resolution to this before more people die. Simply put your argument that it is political meddling is very weak I think given the circumstances as I have laid out. And even then, we are merely taking sides in the international debate...nothing more. Taking a side an international debate is not the kind of thing that creates the backlash you fear...dropping troops in or sending boat loads of weapons and money to radicals is.

The diplomatic lead. Diplomacy. We are not taking a role on the ground or really doing anything other than trying to work within the channels of the UN to get the whole UN to do something to stop the alleged massacres. Why does that upset you so much? We are by definition no inserting our big nose into some conflict. We aren't doing anything other than talking within the international community. The sanctions crippled Assad. He's experiencing higher level defections. Russia no longer ships him weapons (so that's something). What is your beef with merely taking the diplomatic lead? We shouldn't even be involved in speaking to the UN leaders about possible intervention in areas with potential crimes against humanity? Would you have us leave the UN?

I don't see us an intervening in Syria very much at all. Almost nothing that "puts us out there" really, at all. As for why we go along with sanctions...b/c the entire rest of the civilized world has to condemn the regime there. It's that simple. Might Israel like that it happened? Might the Saudi's? Perhaps. Most people have opinions of their neighbors and see their rise or fall as something that will benefit or hurt them. But the simple point is absent the domestic uprising and subsequent crack down and later massacres ... we wouldn't be doing what VERY LITTLE we have done which is basically concur with the rest of the world minus China and Russia. I just don't see what you are so worked up over. We aren't that involved. This did not happen a result of our doing. We are not wasting very much money on this and no American lives or anything...this is a regional conflict as it has played out so far and we are basically not involved. Not any more involved than the rest of the world anyway. This isn't Iraq at all. And just to comment on your comparing the Iraq co-sponsor to what I was describing...I was describing the UN ... not us doing something with only 1 significant partner. Stop talking about this as if McCain gets his way. He doesn't. We are basically doing NOTHING.

Hardly think that is justifying terror for one. I mean that is really, really a stretch. As for economic sanctions being actions of war. Look...Ron Paul is out there. And God bless him and power to you if you want to follow his foreign policy but we just aren't going remove ourselves from the international community the way he would have us do...plain and simple. The world is more globalized than ever, cooperative international resolution of disputes is what the world is. We are going to be involved and yes, we will protect our geopolitical position in the world through dealings within this structure just as everyone else will. This is the "new war"...and the plus is it isn't quite "actual war" for the most part it's just a cross between diplomacy (the game) and chess. Also we have learned some lessons about over meddling. I for one am content in 2012 to only go to war with the international community when we have to (which is very rare that will happen/be agreed upon) and otherwise to impose sanctions ....run covert ops where we need to do so in cases of blatant nose snubbing at the UN.... Keep the boots off the ground, minimize the money spent, and stop being a controlling B word on the world stage and we'll call it a good 4 year turn around. Our actions in Syria do not highly elevate our risk of war btw. Assad is going down, plain and simple. Everyone on earth, even Russia, understands this now. Imposing sanctions on his regime only accelerated/accelerates that process. We have done nothing in Syria that increases our liklihood of war. The only thing that increases that liklihood as prolonged Assad massacre ... our "enemy" there is simply that kind of disorder ... the sanctions have helped. And most importantly, we aren't the most involved by any stretch of the imagination. That has largely been a regional conflict, with most stuff being contained in Syria and neighbors taking sides and supplying the bulk of supplies to either side. That is a good thing. We are keeping our noses out of these things a little more. And Iran is not going to attack us, it's just madness to suggest that. All of the above is of course, purely my view.

B/c we have John McCain instead going on TV talking about how "Mr. President you have turned your back on the good rebels in Syria who only want democracy and are being slaughtered in the streets. The world is waiting for the U.S. the lead, and we do nothing. Mr. President we need to do something now [read: go to war]." Thank God though Obama has not listened and it makes you wonder if McCain wouldn't have been W. Bush #2 if he believes this stuff that comes out of his mouth and given the "Arab Spring"... The bottom line though that guy is sort of just generally opining, which is fair enough and I know we have some people who if given an opportunity to speak in a long form dialogue and w/ no real accountability to the current administration could speak just like him on all these subjects, in fact maybe better. The thing is, for one many of our leaders involved are in the middle of the situation. They are working through it. Iran being critical is note something they are unaware of, but it's not something that we are going to be able to do much about right now. That's the reality of our political situation. B/c you see, we are America. We are not an alien looking down from space analyzing the situation in a vacuum. We have our own political dealings as is. All we can actually do is work with who we can, and try not to go to war if we can find the political nerve to sustain us (which we are not and generally have not had too much trouble finding under this administration... thank God for that). Additionally our people involved can only say what they can say. They are actually working believe it or not they can't just come out and speak their mind on it publicly (certainly not when it would usually imply that a bunch of people we need to work with us suck). So yes you do get political speech, not long form open interviews. And of course when you have people like McCain whining about the Syrian blood (which we all get, it's bad, and nobody likes it)...and then people on Fox News calling Obama weak b/c he apparently isn't man handling Russia into action the way Reagan did over this (joke point) there's also political infighting that just hurts us b/c God knows it's the wrong thing to do/say but it effects the public perception and may eventually effect our actions as a result. That guy basically says do what we are doing more or less. Work for a solution and wait it out. Now if we could get the entire international community (Russia, China) on board would we provide a little air support and get involved in a way he probably wouldn't? We would. But that isn't going to happen. And in any event that would everybody doing that. So long story short, we aren't actually doing anything that is so different from what he wants to do. And as we see more internal defections, less support from Russia, Iran can only continue to support so much more with their own problems/sanctions, it's only a matter of time before it regime topples over under it's own weight and the thing transitions into whatever the hell it is going to be next...all w/ out Western intervention. That's the way I see it anyway. I know you are not an Obama fan, and for some unknown reason completely and utterly hate Hillary Clinton as Sec of State...but we're not going nuts over this. And generally speaking we haven't gone nuts over too much (including Iran) and that's good. I know Romney will go to Israel this summer and beat his chest over Iran...but what we're doing is a better approach to the rhetoric he will spout over that situation (or any situation when it comes to the way he talks about foreign policy). Long story short, this administrations foreign policy is not so far removed from sanity as you may think simply b/c we don't have Clinton doing 60 minutes each week giving her thoughts on everything. We are a player, not an observer we can't just talk openly about anything from the high positions involved...but you can look at our actions and generally speaking we're pretty good at least compared to what we have been.

And why do some of them think America has a secret pro-Islamic fundamentalist agenda to impose on the world? Many of them from trash conservative blogs and news cites you empower with your crazyness. And sadly, also some from elected officials in our own country. Pressed by American reporters to explain where they got the idea that their new Islamist president, Mohamed Morsi, had been foisted on them through a U.S. plot, rather than the will of the majority, several Egyptians cited information gathered from American blogs or news sites. An Egyptian-American Christian who met Mrs. Clinton on Sunday cited recent claims by Representative Michele Bachmann, a Republican, “that the Obama Administration is pursuing a closeted pro-Muslim agenda,” in a conversation with Time magazine’s correspondent, Abigail Hauslohner. http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/16/egyptians-who-jeered-clinton-cite-american-conservatives-to-argue-u-s-secretly-supports-islamists/

PPP...where a topic about simple disclosure for large donations to PACs in time to know who is doing the talking while you are listening...and not one single poster just says "you know, you are right TNB that really isn't that complicated, and I wouldn't mind being able to know." Instead, extended basic freedom arguments (the bill is unambiguously constitutional btw). Arguments about the potential effects of 3rd parties knowing you support a candidate (to the tune of 10K no less we're talking SUPPORT). Arguments that money doesn't effect politics in any meaningful way proven with exact science (lol) and so there is no problem...it's not a "problem" that a handful of people give so much money that run tv ads that play such a visible role in shaping the public debate and yet they aren't revealing themselves to the public...arguments that the information is useless that it doesn't matter WHO gives these large chunks of cash to spookyPACS b/c somehow it doesn't matter who says what only that it is said (this might be my favorite), and of course that it's all partisan political theater of no value to society other than to help the democrats b/c nobody really needs or wants disclosure (the very remedy the supreme court listed as a the solution to possible problems with Citizens United). Anything under the sun accept a practical "Hmmm, ok I guess I would like to be able to know. I see no reason to oppose being able to know. It seems to be in my interest to be for this as opposed to against it." Shaking my head guys, shaking my head. This and tort reform...two things I will never understand why people are so against themselves.

And thus the "government bad, me Tarzan" sentiment rears its head to nonsensically justify anything the GOP does as "pro-people" even when it's anti-people. Why it's so hard to wake up and actually be somewhat independent even if it means criticizing your own party...I will never know. It's not that hard. You aren't ACTUALLY a Republican you know, you are an American. You can think whatever you want on issues and still generally associate with the side that you overall support given the options. Everything that comes out of Obamas mouth, or Romney's mouth, or the house consensus, or the Senate...it's all fair game. Stop being so predisposed to agree with "who you are supposed to agree with" on each issue.

I should have known given this is PPP that people here generally would fight/vote against their ability to know things. Turn on a tv in a swing state. It isn't complicated, it isn't about your freedom of speech being eroded, it's very simple. Large donors to anonymous PACs that represent a handful of people shaping the public discussion is something some people want to know about. That is all. If other normal people tell them "no it's not FREE SPEECH" or "c'mon man the superPACS are good" then so be it. This is America. GOP has huge membership groups that dominate it. Gun lobby for one. And like I said I don't even care if the number drops to include them. GREAT! And the "someday" was saying that even if he didn't want to look it up now ... he could if he did. Put down the beer it's a weekday.

There's a reason you aren't on the Supreme Court. Glad that ended the discussion though. Enjoy your (even more than ever) bull **** political advertisement system while it lasts b/c sooner or later (maybe not this election) your precious, fictitious, anonymous $4 million dollar advertising drops are going to go away. I guess we'll be China then. I'm glad you are happy with things as is. And just so all you know, it's not really even the Presidential election that's the worst. If you want to know the true nonsense it's the Senate races. The Senate money (and to a muchlesser extent the house) is where America is truly bought and sold. And it's not a Republican/Democrat thing...a lot of times (particularly where I'm at and w/ the house campaigns) it's bought-Republican v. actual-citizen-Republican. Spoiler alert, the bought guy always wins.

That's the thing though, the way I see it you don't have to be worried about it. You just have to say...if in the event I someday am or want to know more...would I like that information to be there for me up-to-date and including "social welfare superPACS?" If the answer is ... yes ... then why would you not support it. It's simply disclosure and there is nothing complicated about it...there's really no concrete or significant argument against it...everyone should just...support it. Whether you want to know or don't...support being able to know.

Then we get what we basically have now. Bunk info from both sides, and a constant war to out "bunkify" the market...they don't even talk to each other they talk at fictitious caricatures of the other guy (both sides are exactly equal in that btw even though I know a lot of people on this board believe some of the ridiculous ways Obama is characterized as)....efforts to discredit are rarely effective even assuming they sometimes are then it's just an effort to out bunk and then discredit the other bunk. It's nonsense. And it won't change with this bill, let me be clear on that. But people will have more ammo to dig through WHY what they are seeing/hearing is what they are seeing/hearing and I don't care who you are you typically want to know who the hell is talking. There's no way vague and uncertain arguments about political shake downs and private employment backlash (when you give 10K lol) outweigh a clear, identifiable disclosure interest that ALL AMERICANS (dem or rep) share.

First off it is 10K in the Bill now. I wouldn't be opposed to lowering it but that's just me. As is are you going to give 10K all by yourself? Is the fear of possible retaliation in certain private markets against some people something that outweighs the need for timely disclosure so that all the people of America can (if they choose to) find out who it is that are whispering in their ear to vote this way or that? I can see a potential concern that you are raising. But it's no where near enough, for my taste, to justify people not supporting more timely disclosure and disclosure of these "spookyPACS" that are no more social welfare groups than the Nazis were. They're PACS plain and simple. If you are afraid of a 3rd party retaliating against you (obviously in a way that is lawful, in some situation you may have legal recourse but in many like the one you are posing probably not) as a result..you are going to have to be a big boy and make the call. If you give over 10K, you can't be hidden. So decide. The exact number, people can differ as to what is appropriate but the overall point IMO is that all Americans should support more disclosure. This is something many GOP members in the Senate (including Mr. McCain) LONG supported...until last night. If you want to speak, you can speak per Citizens United. If the people want to know who you are when you enter the public discussion, they should be able to know and know while you are speaking. It's really that simple.

Why though? You don't want to know more about American Crossroads (who pelt my state with ad after ad) or any of the other organizations (including Democratic PACS who really have raised less money but been more effective as of late anyway) that avoid disclosure requirements b/c they are "social welfare" groups. Why would you not want to be able to know if you chose to. I mean we all know it's Rove's PAC, but wouldn't you prefer to be able to easily find up to date info on who exactly is funding the ads you see every other commercial break who are trying so hard to convince you and your neighbors to vote a certain way? There just ins't any reason for the common AMerican to oppose this.

He really does seem to be personally exposed based on this story.