Comments on: Rich Man, Poor Man?

By: rochesterturning.com: turning the tide upstate

rochesterturning.com: turning the tide upstate — Sun, 04 May 2008 15:12:01 +0000

[...] as Clean Money Clean Elections. Well - check out this conversation with the governor. Because the alternative is stuff like this. [...]

By: lorie

lorie — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 23:22:37 +0000

He is nothing more than a frustrated spoiler.

When almost 80% of upstaters –Democrats and Republicans — back public financing it shows just how out of touch “Crazy Jack Davis” really is with the people and the process.

By: Grievous Angel

Grievous Angel — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 22:42:19 +0000

That is fascinating about FDR—I didn’t know that. Today that would be tantamount to civil war, so to speak.

You’re right about the Court and how Obama and Clinton would not be as bold as FDR. Of course, we’ve had nearly eight years of a bold president who listens to few people, so I doubt the country has much appetite for this type of brazen moves anyway, unless it was to end the war in Iraq.

By: Grievous Angel

Grievous Angel — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 22:38:37 +0000

The problem is it’s not like they make you take a test so you can do it, that is be a Democrat. Maybe there should be.

By: Historical Pessimist

Historical Pessimist — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 20:54:26 +0000

The notion that spending your money is the same thing as free speech (Buckley v. Valeo) is one of the root problems here (again, brought to the Supremes by a New Yorker…). How is someone’s microphone and amp the same as my whisper?

Public financing is the best shot NY has at cleaning up Albany and its 98% reelection rate, and Jack Davis may be killing it for us and everyone else. How this guy gets away with calling himself a Democrat is a mystery to me.

By: Paige

Paige — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 20:33:39 +0000

You don’t need to know anything about law any more to determine how the Supreme Court is going to vote. If it favors the wealthy, if it favors the rich corporations, if it favors Rethuglicans, if it favors employers, if it favors unlimited government trampling on people’s rights, then the Supreme Court will vote in favor. If it favors the poor, if it favors minorities, if it favors workers, if it favors anyone arrested on questionable circumstances or whose rights seem to be violated, the Supreme Court will vote against.

As far as this “Trojan Horse”, that is very scary. I believe this Supreme Court will find a way to tear down any progressive legislation.

I know way back when FDR was Prez, he threatened to change the Supreme Court from 9 judges to 15 judges and appoint liberal judges so he could get what he wanted. I would recommend this to Obama or Clinton, except I know I am wasting my time as they are far too centrist to follow through on this threat.