larchmont
02-22-2004, 11:00 PM
Yeah, that's what I said -- "Special Interests" are good.
And this is a knee-jerk liberal talking.
So, Ralph Nader is running again, because he says there isn't enough difference between the parties and they're dominated by "Special Interests."
Not that I always thought this, but......"Special Interests," besides their negatives, are the main thing that keep a president/governor/senator/mayor GROUNDED, and they're the main thing that tell us basically what to expect from him and what we can count on from him, because he's beholden to them. It guides and restricts what he's going to do. Usually we think of that as bad. But I say it's more good than bad.
It's easy to think that we'd like our leaders to act just according to their judgment, or conscience, or "what's right." But, do we? Remember, this is human beings that we're talking about -- fallible human beings, with egos, and bad days and bad weeks, and the abundant ability to make errors of thinking and judgment, and sometimes to just not see stuff.
At the risk of seeming like a total wuss.....it reminds me of Ted Baxter from the Mary Tyler Moore show. One time he was asking for a raise, and he was looking for some leverage, so he said, it's not that he wasn't already giving his all, but if he got more money, he would "take the lid off." And Lou Grant said:
"Ted, we DON'T WANT the lid off."
And that's just it. When you take the lid off, everything depends on the person's fly-by-the-seat-of-his-pants judgment, which maybe is too fallible for a society like ours, and too unpredictable. With "Special Interests" involved, there's sort of a "road map" to be followed. There's a lot to be said for that. Without special interests, we'd have a lot more stuff like Howard Dean taking off his jacket and throwing it into the crowd and rolling up his sleeves and screaming and looking and sounding like a total schmuck, and having our country run in that kind of way.
So, it's not that "Special Interests" are bad and should be eliminated (like Ralph Nader says), it's that we just need to pay close attention to which Special Interests are on a candidate's "road map." It's the main thing that enables us to know what we'll be able to expect if he wins.
Of course we have to keep an eye on the truth meter when candidates talk about Special Interests. Like, John Edwards keeps talking against special interests and how he's not involved with them. But, almost all his money comes from trial lawyers, which I'd say is a "Special Interest."
So: Special Interests, you're getting a bum rap.
Ralph Nader: :madfawk:
And this is a knee-jerk liberal talking.
So, Ralph Nader is running again, because he says there isn't enough difference between the parties and they're dominated by "Special Interests."
Not that I always thought this, but......"Special Interests," besides their negatives, are the main thing that keep a president/governor/senator/mayor GROUNDED, and they're the main thing that tell us basically what to expect from him and what we can count on from him, because he's beholden to them. It guides and restricts what he's going to do. Usually we think of that as bad. But I say it's more good than bad.
It's easy to think that we'd like our leaders to act just according to their judgment, or conscience, or "what's right." But, do we? Remember, this is human beings that we're talking about -- fallible human beings, with egos, and bad days and bad weeks, and the abundant ability to make errors of thinking and judgment, and sometimes to just not see stuff.
At the risk of seeming like a total wuss.....it reminds me of Ted Baxter from the Mary Tyler Moore show. One time he was asking for a raise, and he was looking for some leverage, so he said, it's not that he wasn't already giving his all, but if he got more money, he would "take the lid off." And Lou Grant said:
"Ted, we DON'T WANT the lid off."
And that's just it. When you take the lid off, everything depends on the person's fly-by-the-seat-of-his-pants judgment, which maybe is too fallible for a society like ours, and too unpredictable. With "Special Interests" involved, there's sort of a "road map" to be followed. There's a lot to be said for that. Without special interests, we'd have a lot more stuff like Howard Dean taking off his jacket and throwing it into the crowd and rolling up his sleeves and screaming and looking and sounding like a total schmuck, and having our country run in that kind of way.
So, it's not that "Special Interests" are bad and should be eliminated (like Ralph Nader says), it's that we just need to pay close attention to which Special Interests are on a candidate's "road map." It's the main thing that enables us to know what we'll be able to expect if he wins.
Of course we have to keep an eye on the truth meter when candidates talk about Special Interests. Like, John Edwards keeps talking against special interests and how he's not involved with them. But, almost all his money comes from trial lawyers, which I'd say is a "Special Interest."
So: Special Interests, you're getting a bum rap.
Ralph Nader: :madfawk: