He and Robets hang out alot.

He got it up the day Slattery announced.

I heard it again today.

Among the rather silly things it mentions is speculation on whether Slattery was for KU or Georgetown?

Uh yeah. Like that’s important.

Robets is a foot dragger. It’s time for him to go.

“We the People of the United States of America, in order to form a more perfect union…”

But, you’re right, there’s that 0.001 percent of Americans it does represent.

“Special interest?”

Absolutely not!

:roll:

I know you’re being your usual snarky self, but, (sigh) -

“The people” as used in the Bill of Rights is, of course, a term of art, and refers to individuals, specifically, rights held by individuals against the Gov’t., i.e the term as used in the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 9th amendments.

Duh.

When used in the political context, such as a politician who claims to be for “the people,” however, it is a meaningless term, as you well know. It’s a term of demogoguery. Political/policy choices inevitably pit the interest of some people against others; the idea of “the people’s” interest vs. the interests of “special interests” is a false dichotomy. All of us are “special interests” of one kind or another, and one man’s “people” is another man’s “special interests.”

You knew all that, of course. You’re just displaying your smart-ass for the sake of smart-ass. Congratulations. You’ve demonstrated your willful ignorance. Again.

The people do have common interests, such as being secure in their persons and effects, even if half of them are against it.

Yes but would he support tall and fat ones?

The Constitution? Get with the times man, we did away with that thing back in 2000.

“There is no such thing as “the people.””

I guess the Constitution got it wrong from the start.

There is no such thing as “the people.” We tend to speak of “the people’s interests” when there is no such thing. “The people” are not a monolithic thing, all with similar interests.

We are many, with many interests. One CANNOT represent “the people” – it’s a fantasy. One can only necessarily represent some points of view, some people; one cannot represent “the people.”

Talking about representing “the people’s interests” is usually simply demagoguery.

Have to, to neutralize the lobbying that is being done against my interests this year.

I’m not disagreeing with you. Lobbying is how the game is played. It’s constititutionally protected, after all (1st Am; “petition the government for a redress of grievances”).

I’m just playing the Dem’s own game. He’s a Lobbyist!!! Look out!!! That’s exactly the game they play, still. It’s the usual crap: Republicans are the party of “special interests,” while Dems care about the “little guy.” P-lease.

Even the language we use is loaded – the guy WE like works for “the people;” as if there is such a thing as “the people,” some single entity who wants a particular thing or policy. “The people” is a rhetorical invention as used in terms of seeking policies in ‘their’ favor. There are lots of “people,” with many different interests. I’m aways wary of those who claim to work for “the people;” it’s usually in the NAME of the people, but in reality for their own interests. We’ve seen, for example, the rash of “People’s Republics” around the world, which are neither the ‘peoples’ nor a ‘republic.’

Hillary’s a perfect example: “the people” are a means to power, nothing else. Power is what she seeks, for it’s own purposes.

The OTHER guy “shills” for “special interests,” defined, of course, as the position I disagree with. And every interest has it’s own lobbyists; for every group pressing for something, there’s someone else pressing against it.

The game never changes. And it never will. It just strikes me as more than a little disingenuous to be announcing as an agent of “change” when you are neck-deep in the game as it’s played. Slattery is the classic revolving door politician; in or out of office, working either side of the street depending on whether he’s in or out. He’s in the business of the status quo in Washington – hell, he’s the very definition of status quo.

Is that how you define “change?”

I just heard a Roberts on Slattery attack ad.

Hypocrites. Even the fundies have their own lobbyists.

The guy has been so pro-Bush that he has no credibility at all anymore. He’s gotta go. These people are supposed to work for us.

What difference does that make – it’s a “special interest,” is it not? How does one campaign as an agent of change when one has been elbow deep in the status quo?

Just who? Telecommunications, for one.
http://www.wileyrein.com/news_release.cfm?press_release_id=1245

How ’bout this?
Slattery raised $288,000 in the 12 days after filing paperwork on March 19.

Slattery has been out of politics and working as a Washington lobbyist and lawyer since losing a 1994 bid for governor.

Hmmmm — Where do you think that money has come from? According to the Roberts folks, he was also a registered lobbyist for General Motors.

He’s in the pocket, it looks like; the classic K Street revolving door . . .

http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/story/583527.html

Agent of change, indeed.

“Among others, he lobbied for ME.
Anybody got a problem with that?”

The only problem I have is that there seems to be so much money dedicated to way too many lobbyists. It’s a cryin’ shame you need to hire a lobbyist to get your issues before Congress. But that’s the game, I guess.

Just a guess here, but I suspect, “mrcontroversy” that your competitors also pay lobbyists to influence legislation that does not favor your enterprise.

I don’t have the answer. I don’t know if anyone has the answer. But all of us ordinary people see how a million dollars in campaign contributions via lobbyists tends to turn into billion-dollar windfalls for assorted businesses and industries.