Skip to main content

View Diary: Roemer on board of Right Wing think tank (201 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  This is really ugly (none)
    The man isn't even a "centrist".

    Scaife. shudder

    This would make Roemer as chair a whole new level of disappointment. I thought it would just be more "business as usual, another small step to the right".

    This is bullshit.

    Google bomb tom delay and coward. Ask me how to help.

    by danthrax on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 09:48:38 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Conflict of interest (none)
      Add this to Kos's "Of Faith and Values" post on the front page and consider them together with Blackwell's conflict of interest.  What do they all have in common?  These people are in thrall to Big Money, which subverts democracy by coopting political operatives, media voices, and election officials.  Do I exaggerate?  Maybe, I'm not sure.  Sure looks that way, though. Interesting that a media pundit feels no need to disclose to his audience that he receives hundreds of thousands of dollars from the government to "comment" in favor of positions the Administration advocates. How likely is he to disagree publicly when he's being paid to advocate in favor of an issue?  Is it relevant to inquire whether Roemer receives money from Scaife's posse in exchange for sitting on one of its boards?  

      "Now watch this drive."

      by tompaine2004 on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 10:05:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Seperation of powers (4.00)
        If you thought combining power from religious imporance with power from political importance was bad...

        Well, you already know how bad combining power from economic importance with power from political importance is.

        Power needs to be seperated and fragmented as much as possible. It's the only way to ensure accountability to the powerful.

        Google bomb tom delay and coward. Ask me how to help.

        by danthrax on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 10:10:02 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes (4.00)
          I agree.  The Framers got that one very, very right.  Unfortunately, the Constitution focuses on maintaining a separation of political powers as exercised by government officials but does nothing to prevent the influence of financial/economic power from working its will on all three branches of government.  In fact, the First Amendment and other provisions of the Constitutions assure that that influence may be freely exercised.  I suspect the Framers were all for that as well.  So am I, as long as the press remains independent and does its job.  It gets tough when economic interests, all three branches of government, and the press are in cahoots, and the national opposition party is relatively weak or rudderless.

          "Now watch this drive."

          by tompaine2004 on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 10:57:15 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The press is, itself, now a significant... (4.00)
            ... "economic interest."

            Media consolidation has made it so.

            Thus, the need for stricter regulation of media mergers and a break-up of major media monopolies.

          •  Money ties the corporate owned media (none)
            To partisan political interest.

            If there were some way to cut money out of the picture, the media would report the important stuff properly. Or at least it would be a significant leap in the right direction.

            Google bomb tom delay and coward. Ask me how to help.

            by danthrax on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 01:03:05 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

    •  I disagree... (4.00)
      ...I would say Tim Roemer is the definition of "Centrist." Because everyitme I hear someone say the Democratic Party needs to be more Centrist, what they are truly saying is we need to move to the right, which is complete and utter bullshit.

      I realize that probably isn't how you were applying the term, but thats how I read that. Liberal isn't a dirty word. Centrist is.

      As for this new information, I can't say I'm surprised. As long as the democratic leaders don't know what the hell they stand for and what they are fighting for, they'll fall for anything.

      Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it. -Tom Paine

      by Alumbrados on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 10:11:59 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thank you! (4.00)
        I totally agree, and said so earlier today...from my rant this morning:  

        If I've learned nothing else from my time on this site, it is that the regular people who call themselves Democrats have more heart and soul than (most of) our party's elected leaders, and that the regular people will stand up for and loudly defend their principles.  I am sick of the "liberal"  politicians:  They claim to speak out for us, but that's impossible when the Dems' leaders haven't made it clear what they are speaking out for.  The so-called liberal pundits just reinforce their bad behavior:  Deride them for not being strong like Dear Leader when they don't have a solid position regarding issue X; but then if they do, deride them for insulting the Red Staters.  (Like the conservatives are so sensitive!  But that's a whole other rant...)  

        One thing that Republicans have going for them is that their leaders actually do speak for a majority of the people they represent.   They declare their position on issue X and supply their "facts" to support it; they (mis)lead.  Even if their declared position was directed or their info supplied by the Religious Right, The Heritage Foundation, or the Cato Inst.; Repubs take a stand and don't back down (and usually look very comfortable when defending their back-asswards positions).  

        The wishy-washy stand-for-nothing attitude is why we are losing ground.  The Dems I see on TV hem and haw and don't say much of anything.  If we don't stand up for what we believe in, the undecideds are always going to side with the party that is sure of themselves.    We may be getting better - Ms. Boxer and Ms. Tubbs-Jones have given me a glimmer of hope.   Self-confidence is attractive, after all, and the people will respond if we keep it up.

        "So long as we have enough people in this country willing to fight for their rights, we'll be called a democracy." ~Roger Baldwin

        by spyral on Fri Jan 07, 2005 at 10:24:53 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site