Left and right united in opposition to controversial SCOTUS decision

[buddahj]

Much has been made of late about the hyper-partisan political environment in America. On Tuesday, Sen. Evan Bayh explained his surprising recent decision to leave the Senate by lamenting a "dysfunctional" political system riddled with "brain-dead partisanship." It seems you'd be hard-pressed to get Republicans and Democrats inside and outside of Washington to agree on anything these days, that if one party publicly stated its intention to add a "puppies are adorable" declaration to its platform, that the other party would immediately launch a series of anti-puppy advertisements.

 

But it appears that one issue does unite Americans across the political spectrum.

 

A new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds that the vast majority of Americans are vehemently opposed to a recent Supreme Court ruling that opens the door for corporations, labor unions, and other organizations to spend money directly from their general funds to influence campaigns.

 

As noted by the Post's Dan Eggen, the poll's findings show "remarkably strong agreement" across the board, with roughly 80% of Americans saying that they're against the Court's 5-4 decision. Even more remarkable may be that opposition by Republicans, Democrats, and Independents were all near the same 80% opposition range. Specifically, 85% of Democrats, 81% of Independents, and 76% of Republicans opposed it. In short, "everyone hates" the ruling.

 

The poll's findings could enhance the possibility of getting a broad range of support behind a movement in Congress to pass legislation that would offset the Court's decision. Of those polled, 72% said they supported congressional action to reverse its effects. Sen. Charles Schumer, who's leading the reform effort in the Senate, told the Post that he hoped to get "strong and quick bi-partisan support" behind a bill that "passes constitutional muster but will still effectively limit the influence of special interests."

 

The findings of the poll are a bit surprising considering the fact that the case split the Supreme Court, with the five conservative justices in favor and the four more liberal justices against it. The decision was almost universally hailed by Republicans in Washington, who saw it as a victory for the free speech provided for under the Constitution, while President Obama and prominent Democrats in Washington almost universally derided it as a dark day for American democracy.

 

However, Sen. John McCain, one of the original sponsors of the campaign finance law struck down by Court's decision and one of its few prominent Republican opponents, may have been prophetic when he predicted Americans would turn against the Court. McCain told CBS's "Face the Nation" that there would be a "backlash" once awareness grew about "the amounts of union and corporate money that's going to go into political campaigns."

 

Perhaps the new poll numbers show that McCain might have been onto something.

[driveby]

The only backlash McCain is going to encounter is from voters in Arizona.

 

You blew your chance John, now go away.

[Yukon Cornelius]

The only backlash McCain is going to encounter is from voters in Arizona.

 

You blew your chance John, now go away.

I agree, he never should have sold out to the right wing nuts and picking Sara was political suicide.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

That is interesting. The republican leadership in washington has been falling all over themselves praising it.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

The only backlash McCain is going to encounter is from voters in Arizona.

 

You blew your chance John, now go away.

 

He's 100 times better than his republican opponent JD Hayworth. Not sure the Dems have a viable candidate to run against him.

[driveby]

He's 100 times better than his republican opponent JD Hayworth. Not sure the Dems have a viable candidate to run against him.

This confirms my contention.

[bpwallace49]

That is interesting. The republican leadership in washington has been falling all over themselves praising it.

 

. . . yet the vast majority of Americans think it is a horrible idea . . . . huh . . .

[Perchoutofwater]

That is interesting. The republican leadership in washington has been falling all over themselves praising it.

 

Possibly because it was the right ruling according to the 1st Amendment, and they conservatives praise upholding our founding documents rather than just thrashing them when ever we disagree.

 

. . . yet the vast majority of Americans think it is a horrible idea . . . . huh . . .

 

It is a horrible idea, and it needs to be changed via the way set for in the Constitution. There are two ways to amend the Constitution, pick one and do it. I'll fully support that, as long as you limit TV coverage on political races to debates with no editorializing from the "news" organizations.

[Ursa Majoris]

Possibly because it was the right ruling according to the 1st Amendment,

 

limit TV coverage on political races to debates with no editorializing from the "news" organizations.

 

Anybody see the logic problem here?

[gilthorp]

brain-dead partisanship....the wheels on the bus go round and round, here at the Huddle.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

 

Maybe it's time to bring back the Whigs.

[polksalet]

The majority of US Americans do not support the legality of abortion. What is your nazi?

[Perchoutofwater]

Anybody see the logic problem here?

 

There is no problem with the logic. I don't like what the decision allows, but based on the 1st Amendment I think it is the correct decision. I stated I'd be for an amendment that would supersede the 1st amendment regarding campaign donations if we limit TV coverage on political races to debates with no editorializing from the "news" organizations. There is not problem with the logic. You want to limit free speech, I'm fine with that as long as we limit free speech for everyone, including media conglomerates. Let's change it be amendment. Where is the break in logic?

[Duchess Jack]

a corporation in NOT an individual and the individuals IN a corporation are already represented and already have a voice. Of they wish to join together as one voice - so be it - but they've no right to spend money above and beyond what they can as individuals

[Duchess Jack]

editorializing from the "news" organizations.

 

without 'editorializing' - how would you ever be told your opinion?

 

could you perhaps roll back on the editorializing?

[Perchoutofwater]

without 'editorializing' - how would you ever be told your opinion?

 

could you perhaps roll back on the editorializing?

 

I'm never told my opinion. I get most of my information of the web. I know it is popular for liberals to claim anyone that doesn't agree with them is too stupid to come up with the opposing opinion without Rush or the other talking heads, but that is simply not true and just another tactic used to avoid having an adult conversation and to insult those that disagree with them. I actually watch as much Olbermann and Madcow as I do O'Really, because I like to get perspectives that differ from mine as I'm not so arrogant as to think that anyone that disagrees with me is an idiot. I never watch Beck because he is more painful to watch than Madcow if that is possible. Having said that I rarely watch any of the talking heads. I will watch the Bret Baier if I'm home, but that is about it, and I think most would agree that is a pretty straight up news broadcast. About the only thing you see there that might be considered biased is they choose to cover stories that some of the MSM chooses to ignore.

[TimC]

I always thought the SCOTUS was put in as a check and balance by the Founding Fathers so they wouldn't be swayed by poll numbers like the President and Congress are. Someone edumacate me?

[Perchoutofwater]

I always thought the SCOTUS was put in as a check and balance by the Founding Fathers so they wouldn't be swayed by poll numbers like the President and Congress are. Someone edumacate me?

 

You silly man, haven't you heard, nobody cares about the Founding Fathers and the Constitution anymore they are both so passe'.

[westvirginia]

I always thought the SCOTUS was put in as a check and balance by the Founding Fathers so they wouldn't be swayed by poll numbers like the President and Congress are. Someone edumacate me?

 

There you go, all makin' sense & stuff. When'r ya gonna learn Washington doesn't work that way?

[Savage Beatings]

I agree, he never should have sold out to the right wing nuts and picking Sara was political suicide.

 

Yep, his campaign was a true juggernaut until he picked Palin.

[bushwacked]

Yep, his campaign was a true juggernaut until he picked Palin.

 

Maybe not, but the Palin power play/pay off to the far right backfired for him big time and ultimately assured he was not going to be pres.

[Savage Beatings]

Maybe not, but the Palin power play/pay off to the far right backfired for him big time and ultimately assured he was not going to be pres.

 

He was simply a weak candidate. He didn't have a chance no matter what. Palin gave his campaign the one and only boost of energy that he saw the entire time. Spin it however you like though... that's what you people do best.

[bushwacked]

He was simply a weak candidate. He didn't have a chance no matter what. Palin gave his campaign the one and only boost of energy that he saw the entire time. Spin it however you like though... that's what you people do best.

 

 

C'mon SB, bolded part is just flat out untrue. Her popularity and approval numbers dropped faster in that campaign than America's collective intelligence every-time she spoke.

Edited February 19, 2010 by bushwacked

[driveby]

 

C'mon SB, bolded part is just flat out untrue. Her popularity and approval numbers dropped faster in that campaign than America's collective intelligence every-time she spoke.

 

So predictable.

 

McCain was/is a terrible campaigner. He's a jerk. His rich trophy wife was a problem. He's a RINO. Obama couldn't have had a better person to run against.

 

Palin gave his campaign a huge boost. And she's clearly smarter than Biden, who has to be the dumbest VP evah!

[bushwacked]

You guys are delusional:

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...s_slipping.html

 

 

While the political insiders who are supposed to have their finger on America's pulse worry about Palin's burgeoning "popularity," the fact is that her approval ratings have been sinking. According to a new Washington Post poll, only 37 percent of Americans have a favorable impression of Palin -- an all-time low. Meanwhile, 55 percent have an unfavorable impression of the erstwhile Alaska governor, which is an all-time high.

 

More to the point, Palin's refusal to rule out a run for the White House seems, at present, completely ludicrous. An astounding 71 percent of Americans do not believe that Palin is qualified to serve as president, the Post poll found. This number includes not only virtually all Democrats and two-thirds of independents but also a majority of Republicans -- 52 percent -- who believe that Palin should not be allowed anywhere near the Oval Office.