newsobserver.com projects - Politico - Comments

Re: That Thing you park

GiggleBox — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 07:29:14 -0400

IOKIYAR

Re: That Thing you park

lpetrou — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 08:48:28 -0400

I don't see any sign that says this is an illegal parking space or am I missing something? As for mileage, it is a VW and they always get good mileage.

Re: That Thing you park

midMANdle — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 17:23:06 -0400

As long as Senator Burr pays his parking tickets, then I have no problem with this "story."

Maybe Senator Burr should trade his Thing in for a new car under the "cash for clunkers" program!

I wonder what the gas mileage is on that thing...

Re: That Thing you park

GiggleBox — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 09:50:05 -0400

Good one Brent. You should totally tweet that.

Re: Senator Burr parking only?

informed — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 09:45:28 -0400

Not kidding, and I don't want to know where you put your thing.

But, enough about you.

Re: That Thing you park

woodcox — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 09:24:47 -0400

No wonder the DSCC and the President can't recruit anyone to run against Burr, their best opposition research consists of parking tickets.

Re: Senator Burr parking only?

GiggleBox — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 08:16:01 -0400

This is the real arrogance of the left putting themselves in the place of god almighty

You've got to be kidding. A-hem.

At least I didn't put my Thing in the place marked illegal. Again.

Re: Senator parking only?

informed — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 07:24:26 -0400

GB,

The glare doesn't prove anything, any more than saying something makes it so. This is the real arrogance of the left, putting themselves in the place of god almighty, who spoke all of creation into being.

You and bniolet make quite the companion pieces. Why not take your show on the road, like to another city far, far away.

Re: Senator Burr parking only?

GiggleBox — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 00:14:45 -0400

Doesn't take a PhotoShop genius to see that. Maybe that IS Burr's car, but the faked up picture kills all credibility....

No, it doesn't take a PhotoShop genius to be a reporter. Plates reflect light just like road signs. The glare proves it's real. Ask any PhotoShop genius. You should know several since you're probably 'convinced' Obama isn't from here.

Blow the Burr photo up, then tell us what say you about the comparison to Burr's actual bumper stickers?

Is the media driving around DC in a THING with the same bumper stickers and parking illegally in front of the Capitol Hill Club too just for blog tidbits?

Like Sarah Palin says... quit making stuff up you gotcha bloggers and mainstream media and people that know stuff. Also...!

Re: Senator parking only?

kevin_smith5 — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 23:57:44 -0400

That plate hasn't been "lightened, it's been faked. Doesn't take a PhotoShop genius to see that. Maybe that IS Burr's car, but the faked up picture kills all credibility....

Re: Senator Burr parking only?

GiggleBox — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 19:46:58 -0400

Not sure what Senator Burr's Thing was doing that night outside the Capitol Hill Club. [That really shouldn't sound so dirty.]

Maybe he just needed a ride home after his last Mimosa fundraiser there, and is still recovering from a "Dude, where's my car?" moment.

That would explain his Tweets on Sotomayor and a lot of other things.

Re: Reaction to Cooper's decision

mountainman — Sun, 17 May 2009 20:22:55 -0400

Brent Woodcox for governor 2012.

Re: Reaction to Cooper's decision

scharrison — Sun, 17 May 2009 19:04:26 -0400

That's nice Brent, but it doesn't do anything about the corruption you're worried about. Attacking corrupt individuals without addressing the money that corrupts them is akin to feverishly bailing out your basement every time it floods, and hoping your diligence will convince the creek to not overflow its banks.

And here's another quote by TJ:

"There is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents... There is also an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents; for with these it would belong to the first class... The artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provision should be made to prevent its ascendency."

Whether a person uses his wealth to gain public office, or uses his wealth to manipulate an office-holder, it makes no difference. The bottom line is, money speaks much louder than the voices of the people, and nearly every single election victory can be attributed to money acquired and spent. Now, who do you think will get the most money: someone who will do the job right, or someone who will return favors?

Re: Reaction to Cooper's decision

woodcox — Sun, 17 May 2009 17:36:56 -0400

In my view, publicly financed campaigns are not an acceptable solution from a constitutional standpoint to the corrupting influence of special interests. The First Amendment won't allow it. Garnering public monies to support incumbents won't eliminate corruption. It will fan the flame. (For instance, publicly financed campaigns would have done nothing to curb the alleged abuses of power by the former Governor. Providing favors in place of campaign funds would become the preferred way of gaining influence and power.) Republicans aren't "duped" by constitutional arguments. We just refuse to negotiate or ignore constitutional mandates based on whether or not they are inconvenient in regards to achieving our policy preferences.

With regard to First Amendment arguments against public campaign financing, it was Thomas Jefferson who wrote, "To compel a man to furnish funds for the propagation of ideas he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical." It was James Madison who argued in the Federalist No. 10 that restraining liberty in order to restrain "factions" or special interests was an unacceptable solution. Madison wrote that, "liberty is to faction what air is to fire." Liberty is essential to American political life. Restraining it through the rules associated with these incumbency protection schemes contradicts the whole reason to have a political system in the first place: to preserve liberty. It is likely here that our opinions truly diverge. Most liberals/progressives believe that the reason for creating a political system is to preserve order, or to control people by giving the government power to restrain them. Most conservatives believe that the reason for creating a political system is to preserve liberty, or to control government by giving the people power to restrain it.

Re: Reaction to Cooper's decision

scharrison — Sun, 17 May 2009 15:17:04 -0400

"The die is cast, friend, and the day is quickly approaching when the people will seize back power from the political elites running state government by using their votes. All the sweetheart deals, political kickbacks, and special interest money in the world won't be enough to stop it."

Brent, I think you're familiar enough with my point of view to know that I don't condone or appreciate the influence of money-wielding special interests in the operations of state government. But you know what? It's not about Democrat vs Republican anymore. That's an illusion, and one that genuine conservatives (and liberals) have allowed themselves to be duped by.

If you don't believe me, pick a Republican Senator and take the time to look at total votes. I did this with Robert Pittenger last year, and found that he had voted with the majority (Democrats) over 90% of the time. Oh, they all have their little "hot button" issues that make them look like bonafide adversaries, and they might vote "no" on the huge budget bill. But they had already voted "yes" for the hundreds of previous bills that represent the lion's share of spending in the budget, so they're just as responsible for the budget shortfall as the Democratic majority is.

You guys say you want change, and to get rid of corruption and influence and all that. But when the rubber meets the road, and efforts to do just that come along, like publicly financed campaigns that would seriously limit the influence of money in elections, which would (in turn) make our lawmakers much less beholden to those special interests, you allow propagandists to tweak your emotions with 1st Amendment babble and Free Market nonsense. And the money keeps flowing. Last year, realtors and developers donated something like $12 million to state and local candidates from both parties, and that doesn't account for ads they bought themselves.

I understand that the current formula for public financing has some flaws in it, but if you guys would a) acknowledge the need for it, and b) help to shape it into something better, we might be able to actually get something good accomplished.