wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

Comments

• [1] Carey from Mt. Kisco October 22, 2007 - 10:14AM

  The Republicans are not running FOR America. They're running AGAINST Clinton.

  It's not "Vote for me because...." but "Don't vote for her because...."

  And it's only October 2007!!! Ugh, the thought of this going on for another YEAR makes me ill. I think the best thing for this election would be a total media gag-order until say June 2008.

  
  
• [2] john from manhattan October 22, 2007 - 10:27AM

  The Rep candidates' fixation with Hillary tells me they are all terrified that they will have to face her some day in a debate. They are willing to face one another because they all have an interest in supporting the general macho culture, and will not violate it with each other.

  If they debate her, given her history with the macho culture, she will have no interest in supporting their illusions of masculinity, and she will make them all look and feel like kids who have forgotten their potty training.

  
  
• [3] Stephen from manhattan October 22, 2007 - 10:38AM

  Brian: I'm a Mormon living in New York City. I love your show. I am a liberal-leaning Republican and Mitt Romney is not really my man for the nomination. I think you need to do a couple of segments on The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to really understand its theological underpinnings and how this is part of Mitt's run for the presidency.

  
  
• [4] Carey from Mt. Kisco October 22, 2007 - 10:39AM

  Right on with the foreign-born candidate ammendments!

  
  
• [5] eric fluger from jersey city October 22, 2007 - 10:45AM

  my own constitutional amendment wish list:

  1. ERA ratification.

  2. establish an explicit right to privacy (without undermining the implicit right to privacy in the process).

  3. add "gross incompetence" to the list of impeachable offenses (for the president).

  4. establish fourth branch of government that facilitates bilateral, multilateral, and regional peer to peer agreements between states.

  5. establish explicit criteria for federal regulation of issues that transcend individual states and are unsuitable for regulation by peer to peer agreement without relying on the commerce clause.

  
  
• [6] J.C. from Minneapolis October 22, 2007 - 11:01AM

  The stated goal of changing the presidential term was to somehow reduce the role of party in the presidency. I would like the professor to explain what was so wrong with political parties? People are going to disagree on issues and the way one puts one views into law in a democracy is to get together with like-minded people. Sure, politicians keep an eye on their party's base voters, but isn't that democracy? When there's a big enough group of voters who want something, why are you complaining when politicians listen to the people?

  Now, the big footnote in all this concerns the always-present problem of the tyranny of the majority, but the point is that political parties are not inherently bad things (though they can definitely have destructive ideas!).

  
  
• [7] J.C. from Minneapolis October 22, 2007 - 11:04AM

  Why the sudden fixation by so many pundits--inlcuding this professor--on "national service"? What exactly do you think will be gained by this idea (never mind the fact that the 13th Amendment abolished slavery)? Is it done in the hope that people will pay attention to current events after doing whatever work the government finds for them? Come on, that's like saying that requiring everyone to go to church will make everyone Christian (or whatever religion)? Not everyone in a democracy will pay attention to the news or "be involved." Forced labor for or by the government won't change that.

  Also, this service idea might be related to the wacky idea on the left--and in places on the right--that a national draft would stop wars. That is absurd.

  I am sympathetic to the idea that the costs of this war are not being shared across the population, but having a larger army increases the temptation on presidents to start more military actions. A larger army might also increase the pressure on war opponents to shut up because the "you must support the war if you want to support the troops" argument will be more powerful.

  To stop stupid war, Americans need to learn to have an honest discussion on war without one side calling the other side "traitors." Another basic problem with military policy is that Americans give into fear too easily. A draft would not change people's opinions because it would do nothing to address those two problems.

  
  
• [8] Bill Berner from My Constitutional Amendment October 22, 2007 - 11:32AM

  Going a step further than Mr. Sabato, I adovcate a constitutional amendment that mandates complete federal funding of ALL federal elections. In a stroke, the power of corporations and interest groups would be greatly reduced. Certainly creating legislation that determines the parameters of a bona fide candidate candidate would be difficult and controversial, but worth it.

  I have no expectation that such an amendment would stand a chanc of passage given the strength of the groups that would be affected, and thescreams about 1st amendment rights being thrown away would be deafening, but I believe it would be a huge step forward for our country.

  
  
• [9] J.C. from Minneapolis October 22, 2007 - 03:50PM

  Re: Mr. Berner's comment.

  The problem I have with 100% public financing of campaigns is deciding how to distribute the money. Are you willing to have the government finance, for example, the Nazi party? If not, why not? Or are you for the government deciding what a "correct" political opinion is?

  I think a way around this problem is to have the government--which happens in limited form--offer to match contributions to candidates.

  And why are interest groups bad anyway? Sure, they're bad when they advocate something that you don't like. But aren't they great when they're on your side? I think it's unrealistic to think you can have democracy without any political organizations at all.

  I agree corporations and groups can have stupid and dangerous ideas, but other policies like full disclosure of their campaign contributions and their contributors is the best way to fight their influence without infringing on free speech.

  Complete gov't financing of campagins won't be the panacea people think, but there are other ways to solve this problem.