By Sean Sullivan
...For months, (click here) the combination of a weak Republican field without a
standard bearer and Braley's steady hand made a GOP upset in a must-win
state for Democrats look unlikely. But Braley's remark has breathed new
life into GOP efforts to claim Iowa, which could be pivotal to
Republican efforts to win back the Senate.
To many Republicans, Braley's gaffe was not a surprise. The Democratic congressman's mouth has gotten him into trouble before, most recently during last year's government shutdown. Braley said he was pleased the House gym had stayed open but noted, "There's no towel service, we're doing our own laundry down there," prompting criticism.
"Bruce Braley is doing something Republicans have known and have been screaming about at the top of our lungs for years. He is a deeply flawed candidate and a bad campaigner," said Tim Albrecht, a former aide to Gov. Terry Branstad (R) whose firm has done work for state Sen. Joni Ernst (R), one of Braley's opponents....
A majority in the US Senate isn't enough for Republicans. They need a super majority to tragically destroy the US Constitution. Democrats need to polish and run every candidate in every state. Sometimes a little input goes a long way. It isn't to win necessarily, but, to win in the future.
Posted
Regarding the April 2 Supreme Court ruling which allows more millionaires and billionaires to fund more candidates, I worry that it would be easy to give up on our elections. After all, most voters can’t compete financially for candidates’ attention.
We as citizens either get more involved with our time, or we will be trampled by the candidates heading to their funders with deep pockets.
But, there is a candidate who is a person of the people. Bruce Braley would be a senator who is not beholden to the corporations and who would be a champion for those of us who still believe in a progressive Iowa that works for everyone, not just the 1 or 2 percent. His record is one of winning back lost wages and fighting for those who need a hand up.
I encourage voters to give Bruce a close look and you will see a man who will work for you, not for big-money interests.
Brenda Brink, Huxley
This is from the Ames Tribune. IOWA.
To many Republicans, Braley's gaffe was not a surprise. The Democratic congressman's mouth has gotten him into trouble before, most recently during last year's government shutdown. Braley said he was pleased the House gym had stayed open but noted, "There's no towel service, we're doing our own laundry down there," prompting criticism.
"Bruce Braley is doing something Republicans have known and have been screaming about at the top of our lungs for years. He is a deeply flawed candidate and a bad campaigner," said Tim Albrecht, a former aide to Gov. Terry Branstad (R) whose firm has done work for state Sen. Joni Ernst (R), one of Braley's opponents....
A majority in the US Senate isn't enough for Republicans. They need a super majority to tragically destroy the US Constitution. Democrats need to polish and run every candidate in every state. Sometimes a little input goes a long way. It isn't to win necessarily, but, to win in the future.
Posted
Letter: Braley would stand against corporate interests (click here)
Braley would stand against corporate interestsRegarding the April 2 Supreme Court ruling which allows more millionaires and billionaires to fund more candidates, I worry that it would be easy to give up on our elections. After all, most voters can’t compete financially for candidates’ attention.
We as citizens either get more involved with our time, or we will be trampled by the candidates heading to their funders with deep pockets.
But, there is a candidate who is a person of the people. Bruce Braley would be a senator who is not beholden to the corporations and who would be a champion for those of us who still believe in a progressive Iowa that works for everyone, not just the 1 or 2 percent. His record is one of winning back lost wages and fighting for those who need a hand up.
I encourage voters to give Bruce a close look and you will see a man who will work for you, not for big-money interests.
Brenda Brink, Huxley
This is from the Ames Tribune. IOWA.
Posted
Supreme Court wrong on campaign finance
To the Honorable Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, you five men who brought in the majority decision, five-to-four, which put the various levels of elected governments in the United States into the hands of wealth and power. Literally, you have given us the best government money can buy. We cannot accuse you of going back to “original intent,” which some of you cite from time to time. You have set aside our Constitution and gone back to when it had not yet been ratified in 1787.
Back then, James Madison observed that only one-fourth of the residents of the Commonwealth of Virginia were allowed to vote to form government. One-half of the residents were the cheapest labor available, slaves, considered only to be property. The remaining one-fourth were women or did not possess property or wealth enough to give them the vote.
Shame on you from We the People of the United States, from whom you would take away the power of our votes.
Robert G. Farr, Ames
Mr. Robert G. Farr frequents the "Letters to the Editor" of the Ames Tribune. There is a Democratic constituency in Iowa. What is everyone waiting for?
...As Will Rogers (click here) recommended to the losers in 1928, “Vote for what is good for all of us in our country. Before long the public will catch on.”
Robert G. Farr, Ames
Iowa needs a Democrat US Senator.
Demographically it looks like it should be, it has a similar "make up" to very red states like Nebraska and Kansas. Iowa has never been a very red state though. It was one of Reagan's weakest states in 1980 and 1984. Ford barely won it in 1976. Bush lost it in 1988, Clinton won it twice, Gore won it (barely), Bush barely won it in 2004 and Obama won it twice.
Is there a lot of mining or industry in Iowa compared with Kansas and Nebraska which gives Democrats the edge?
The journalist Bill Moyers wrote a rather incredible response to McCutcheon.
April 2, 2014
Central to the Supreme Court’s (click here) campaign finance decisions in the John Roberts era is that the government’s only legitimate interest in this area is preventing direct, quid pro quo corruption — a donor demanding that a specific law be passed, or killed, in exchange for cash — or the appearance of direct corruption....
... In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts wrote that “government regulation may not target the general gratitude a candidate may feel toward those who support him or his allies, or the political access such support may afford.”...
That statement is explicit permission for corruption by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
To the Honorable Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, you five men who brought in the majority decision, five-to-four, which put the various levels of elected governments in the United States into the hands of wealth and power. Literally, you have given us the best government money can buy. We cannot accuse you of going back to “original intent,” which some of you cite from time to time. You have set aside our Constitution and gone back to when it had not yet been ratified in 1787.
Back then, James Madison observed that only one-fourth of the residents of the Commonwealth of Virginia were allowed to vote to form government. One-half of the residents were the cheapest labor available, slaves, considered only to be property. The remaining one-fourth were women or did not possess property or wealth enough to give them the vote.
Shame on you from We the People of the United States, from whom you would take away the power of our votes.
Robert G. Farr, Ames
Mr. Robert G. Farr frequents the "Letters to the Editor" of the Ames Tribune. There is a Democratic constituency in Iowa. What is everyone waiting for?
...As Will Rogers (click here) recommended to the losers in 1928, “Vote for what is good for all of us in our country. Before long the public will catch on.”
Robert G. Farr, Ames
Iowa needs a Democrat US Senator.
Demographically it looks like it should be, it has a similar "make up" to very red states like Nebraska and Kansas. Iowa has never been a very red state though. It was one of Reagan's weakest states in 1980 and 1984. Ford barely won it in 1976. Bush lost it in 1988, Clinton won it twice, Gore won it (barely), Bush barely won it in 2004 and Obama won it twice.
Is there a lot of mining or industry in Iowa compared with Kansas and Nebraska which gives Democrats the edge?
The journalist Bill Moyers wrote a rather incredible response to McCutcheon.
April 2, 2014
Central to the Supreme Court’s (click here) campaign finance decisions in the John Roberts era is that the government’s only legitimate interest in this area is preventing direct, quid pro quo corruption — a donor demanding that a specific law be passed, or killed, in exchange for cash — or the appearance of direct corruption....
... In the majority opinion, Chief Justice Roberts wrote that “government regulation may not target the general gratitude a candidate may feel toward those who support him or his allies, or the political access such support may afford.”...
That statement is explicit permission for corruption by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
As
Will Rogers recommended to the losers in 1928, “Vote for what is good
for all of us in our country. Before long the public will catch on.”
Robert G. Farr, Ames
- See more at: http://amestrib.com/opinion/letter-elected-officials-must-work-public-good#sthash.EAGAJGf2.dpuf
Robert G. Farr, Ames
- See more at: http://amestrib.com/opinion/letter-elected-officials-must-work-public-good#sthash.EAGAJGf2.dpuf
Supreme Court wrong on campaign finance
To the Honorable Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, you five men who brought in the majority decision, five-to-four, which put the various levels of elected governments in the United States into the hands of wealth and power. Literally, you have given us the best government money can buy. We cannot accuse you of going back to “original intent,” which some of you cite from time to time. You have set aside our Constitution and gone back to when it had not yet been ratified in 1787.
Back then, James Madison observed that only one-fourth of the residents of the Commonwealth of Virginia were allowed to vote to form government. One-half of the residents were the cheapest labor available, slaves, considered only to be property. The remaining one-fourth were women or did not possess property or wealth enough to give them the vote.
Shame on you from We the People of the United States, from whom you would take away the power of our votes.
Robert G. Farr, Ames
- See more at: http://amestrib.com/opinion/letter-supreme-court-wrong-campaign-finance#sthash.Z0e7NZML.dpuf
To the Honorable Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, you five men who brought in the majority decision, five-to-four, which put the various levels of elected governments in the United States into the hands of wealth and power. Literally, you have given us the best government money can buy. We cannot accuse you of going back to “original intent,” which some of you cite from time to time. You have set aside our Constitution and gone back to when it had not yet been ratified in 1787.
Back then, James Madison observed that only one-fourth of the residents of the Commonwealth of Virginia were allowed to vote to form government. One-half of the residents were the cheapest labor available, slaves, considered only to be property. The remaining one-fourth were women or did not possess property or wealth enough to give them the vote.
Shame on you from We the People of the United States, from whom you would take away the power of our votes.
Robert G. Farr, Ames
- See more at: http://amestrib.com/opinion/letter-supreme-court-wrong-campaign-finance#sthash.Z0e7NZML.dpuf
Letter: Supreme Court wrong on campaign finance
Posted
Braley would stand against corporate interests
Regarding the April 2 Supreme Court ruling which allows more millionaires and billionaires to fund more candidates, I worry that it would be easy to give up on our elections. After all, most voters can’t compete financially for candidates’ attention.
We as citizens either get more involved with our time, or we will be trampled by the candidates heading to their funders with deep pockets.
But, there is a candidate who is a person of the people. Bruce Braley would be a senator who is not beholden to the corporations and who would be a champion for those of us who still believe in a progressive Iowa that works for everyone, not just the 1 or 2 percent. His record is one of winning back lost wages and fighting for those who need a hand up.
I encourage voters to give Bruce a close look and you will see a man who will work for you, not for big-money interests.
Brenda Brink, Huxley
- See more at: http://amestrib.com/opinion/letter-braley-would-stand-against-corporate-interests#sthash.Qjr57Xk1.dpuf
Regarding the April 2 Supreme Court ruling which allows more millionaires and billionaires to fund more candidates, I worry that it would be easy to give up on our elections. After all, most voters can’t compete financially for candidates’ attention.
We as citizens either get more involved with our time, or we will be trampled by the candidates heading to their funders with deep pockets.
But, there is a candidate who is a person of the people. Bruce Braley would be a senator who is not beholden to the corporations and who would be a champion for those of us who still believe in a progressive Iowa that works for everyone, not just the 1 or 2 percent. His record is one of winning back lost wages and fighting for those who need a hand up.
I encourage voters to give Bruce a close look and you will see a man who will work for you, not for big-money interests.
Brenda Brink, Huxley
- See more at: http://amestrib.com/opinion/letter-braley-would-stand-against-corporate-interests#sthash.Qjr57Xk1.dpuf
Posted
- See more at: http://amestrib.com/opinion/letter-braley-would-stand-against-corporate-interests#sthash.Qjr57Xk1.dpuf
