Lora Werner: Almost non-partisan

Advertisement

Regarding Sally Claassen’s letter to the editor titled “Caucuses start Tuesday.”

I want to applaud Sally Claassen for her promotion of the caucuses and compliment her on what was almost her non-partisan letter.

One sentence caused me to wonder why she chose the phrase, “Caucuses not Koch’s.” If her point was to highlight Big Money versus The People, shouldn’t she have gone for the really big money and said “Caucuses

not Soros.”

Wish I could have said, “See you there Sally,” but my guess is we attended different caucuses.

Lora Werner

Steamboat Springs

Comments

mark hartless 6 months, 2 weeks ago

"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."

Koch's and Soros; heads and tails of the same coin.

0

Dan Shores 6 months, 2 weeks ago

mark, you could have left out the first paragraph and just posted the last sentence. Would have been more affective and effective in my view. Just sayin.

1

Dan Shores 6 months, 2 weeks ago

Be nice if we could agree to get big money out of politics and if we can't do that, at least agree to require that the source of the money be disclosed.

0

Fred Duckels 6 months, 2 weeks ago

On the big donor list the Koch's are 59TH, way behind the unions and universities and liberal contributors. Lorne Michaels of SNL said that it is easier to make fun of conservatives because they will laugh with you, but liberals take it personally. The same is true when donors are involved, in that if they can be identified they will rue the day that they contributed. If the left can identify donors they will use nefarious tactics to make sure that the contributor pays a heavy price and hopefully discontinues their support.

2

Mike Kent 6 months, 2 weeks ago

Really Lora? And Fred. Why must some people make partisan politics out of everything? And how come it is usually the "right"? I read Sally's letter. Seems like she's just asking people to get involved. And to me at least, "Koch" sounds like "caucus" more than "Soros" does. Flows better. Just sayin...

1

mark hartless 6 months, 2 weeks ago

Fred is exactly right.

The left wants to identify donors so it can browbeat those who gave to the "wrong" side.

Obama's nation sounds like abomination. Flows pretty good... must be the same meaning...just sayin'...

1

Dan Shores 6 months, 2 weeks ago

Seems like all should be in favor of full disclosure if there is to be no limit on contributions to political campaigns. That way the left can browbeat those who gave to the "wrong" side and the right can in turn browbeat those who gave to the "wrong" side. At least the voters would know who is pulling the strings and can thereby make a more informed decision.

0

mark hartless 6 months, 2 weeks ago

The difference is, as Fred pointed out, that the right doesn't tend to do as much browbeating. That's not to say there shouldn't be more daylight on who's giving who money in politics.

0

Chris Hadlock 6 months, 2 weeks ago

"Koch Brothers 59th in PAC contributions" - Yes, but only if you look at what they publically list as contributions. The problem is that with the advent of the fuzzy relationships between Candidate, PAC, and Super PAC has allowed "dark money" to be freely moved around and sources hidden from view.

Just looking at the following link where groups directly affiliated with the Koch Brothers were fined for illegal money transfers from within organizations to hide the sources.

http://www.afscme.org/blog/secretive-koch-networks-fined-1-million-for-illegal-campaign-contributions

I would love to see the complete elimination of PACS and Super PACS and call for the following: 1. Unlimited campaign contributions from any individual or business. 2. Complete transparency - All campaign donations must be public domain information 3. No candidate fundraising until 1 calendar year prior to the election. 4. At the end of each election cycle, ALL unused campaign funds revert to the government organization that the candidate was running for. Each Candidate starts with fresh fundraising for each new election.

Campaign finances are like cocaine to these candidates. The more campaign funds that our elected officials are allowed to amass, the more they want and the less they respond to the concerns of their constituents. The only thing they are motivated to accomplish is raising more "campaign money" and they will say almost anything in order to built a package that can be sold to the donors.

This is NOT a right/left issue. Politicians on both sides are rolling in dough and laughing at your concerns all the way to the bank.

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 6 months, 2 weeks ago

The definition of irony. A union group calling out the Koch Brothers. I have no problem cutting PAC money contributions as long as the unions follow the same rules.

0

jerry carlton 6 months, 2 weeks ago

Chris your last paragraph is oh so true. Wonder how many of them are addicted to money and cocaine? I am unaware of any drug testing for congress? Would probably disqualify many of them.

0

Chris Hadlock 6 months, 2 weeks ago

Dan, I agree completely. Not really a union guy either but that is a different topic. The link was more about the California/Arizona Court findings than anything else. That it happens to be a union site is because they are the ones with the biggest axe to grind against the Kochs thus the reporting. (Check the backup links to mostly real newspapers that are in the article.)

I do not believe that the fact it is union reporting changed the facts any. You just have to read from enough sources to try and de-spin the way so many news outlets present information. Each brings their own particular bias or spin. This includes each and every one of us.

Jerry :)

0

Fred Duckels 6 months, 2 weeks ago

The symbiotic relationship between public sector unions and the Democratic Party relegates the Koch's to footnote status. In essence the union contributions are recycled taxpayer moneys. Across the nation our unfunded legacy obligations dwarf the national debt. One reason we are printing $85 B per month is to build up some equity in these promissory schemes that were perfected by the mafia. It is now out of their reach and the politicos have crowded in on the action..

2

Dan Kuechenmeister 6 months, 2 weeks ago

I love it when my liberal friends (those who are not libertarian or conservative) ignore articles such as the one I posted above. No comments. Move along, move along, nothing to see here.

1

rhys jones 6 months, 2 weeks ago

Dan -- I don't click links, and I don't put them in my posts. Talk for yourself. Some of us don't have all day to research the latest tripe.

Not that I necessarily disagree. Just sayin', some of us have so-called lives...

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 6 months, 2 weeks ago

Hey Rhys, Don't make no never mind to me which if any links you choose to click. Just adding my 2 cents worth. Happen to do a lot of reading, was part of my previous career. When I find something I believe might be related to the topic I am happy to post it for those who might care to read it. PS: I happen to like my life - just sayin'. (-;

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.