Letters to the Editor

Your views in 200 words or less

POLITICS: A political new year

Letter by Rev. V.J. DePalma, University Place on Jan. 12, 2012 at 10:59 am with 29 Comments »
January 12, 2012 10:59 am

Is a political new year even possible given the habit of politicians, surrogates and super PACs to attack and resurrect the bygone thoughts and actions of the past?

I used to think and behave somewhat differently in my past. Many people, including politicians, grow and evolve over time. Yes, human beings make mistakes and trespass, but we all have the liberty to grow, evolve, and be redeemed. We can move on and create a new world out of the past. This truth is substantiated by the words of Jesus, who taught his followers to pray, “Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us.”

Everyone is free to grow, improve, and be redeemed except apparently during a political campaign when politicians, surrogates, and super PACs choose to regress and resurrect the worst in one another. They choose to create an old world out of the present progress of new life working in each of us.

Thomas Jefferson said we have inalienable rights, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but during a political campaign we deny one another of these rights.

We can do better. We can move beyond this destructive will to power. As we enter this political new year, as we seek and select our new political leaders, let us esteem and hold fast to new Life, to a Liberty that allows us to grow and evolve, and to a Pursuit of a Happiness that is true and not at the expense of others.

Tags:
Leave a comment Comments → 29
  1. I would agree that “Thomas Jefferson said we have inalienable rights, such as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” but I kind of doubt he said “during a political campaign we deny one another of these rights.”

    I’m not saying the reverend is not telling the truth here, but I’d need to see a referenced quote on that last part.

    Political campaigns do get nasty, but I really don’t think anyone is denied their rights during those campaigns. Not in America anyway.

  2. ManuelMartini says:

    Good luck, Rev.

  3. bobcat1a says:

    Actually, Mr Jefferson spoke of “UNalienable” not INalienable rights.

  4. ReadNLearn says:

    I was like ‘Dude, what are you smoking’ then I saw it was a Reverend so I’ll just skip the biting comment. Now if this was my Mullah writing in, I’d chirp support.

  5. Yep….that whole corporations are people who deserve all of the rights and privileges of individuals and money is speech so Citizens United should be able to collect unlimited anonymous donations from citizens and foreigners alike and let it flow into negative campaign adds sure makes our democracy stronger!

  6. one D. “ads”

  7. SCORPION says:

    I’d take you more seriously if you added ‘Unions’ to your rant above… the AFL-CIO formed a Super-Duper PAC ya know.

  8. Lighten-up, Francis!

  9. Rev. V.J. DePalma, if you are reading these comments, I would like you to know that commenters like SCORPION above, DO NOT represent the majority of us here on these threads.

    As you say in your letter, “We can do better.” and most of us do try, in spite of these exceptions.

    Thank you for your letter. I am still curious as to what you meant in paragraph 4 where you have written, “but during a political campaign we deny one another of these rights.”

  10. SCORPION says:

    I guess it’s my turn huh mucky…

    ;)

  11. Scop – unions have formed a Super PAC = one against many.

  12. Again the response I receive is “what about the Unions?”

    I agree, ALL corporate entities should not be provided with individual Constitutional rights. Why do I have to keep enumerating UNIONS TOO every time I write this?

  13. SCORPION says:

    Because bb their are people who are clueless and do not know the Unions were also affected by the Citizens United case.

    You don’t have to add Unions if you don’t care to, but people need to know it is not one sided. The Unions had this available to them for years and have decided to take more advantage of the rules also.

    You Union dues go up…?

  14. “Why do I have to keep enumerating UNIONS TOO every time I write this?”

    Here beerBoy, give this a read…

    “So why would [Chief Justice] Roberts want to give more power to a sector which has long been a thorn in the side of the conservative principles he so strongly espouses as Chief Justice and as a long-time member of the conservative Federalist Society?”

    “Because the next step after Citizens United — giving more freedom to use more money more clandestinely to business and unions — is to launch a full-scale attack on unions…and especially those in the public sector.”

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/20/947391/-Why-Citizens-United-and-The-Attack-on-Unions-Are-Linked

  15. bobcat1a says:

    No one on the conservative side has room to complain about superpacs. It was their pet judges who insisted that corporations are persons with the same free speech rights of real people. It was President Obama who called it a mistake and was attacked by Fox and the rest of the right. It was unions who criticized the Citizens United decision but they won’t unilaterally disarm.
    To quote the 2010 State of the Union Address:
    “With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I’d urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.
    The Republicans and the conservative justices were proud of Citizens United and now they are being hoist on their own petards.

  16. Pacman33 says:

    Political Spending Past Legislative Session
    TOP 5 SPENDERS
    1. The Washington Federation of State Employees
    Spent $626,481 lobbying the Legislature through May, the largest amount of any single agency, business or organization, according to the state Public Disclosure Commission. About $110,757 was for compensation for lobbyists or staffers who spent time lobbying, and nearly $515,724 was for expenses.

    2. Service Employees International Union Healthcare 775NW: $402,676 ($63,429 compensation, $339,247 expenses)

    3. Washington Education Association: $382,619 ($204,660 compensation, $177,959 expenses)

    4. Washington State Hospital Association: $331,761 ($176,805 compensation, $154,955 expenses)

    5. Boeing: $330,647 ($316,868 compensation, $13,779 expenses)

    http://www.theolympian.com/2011/07/11/1720153/unions-were-big-spenders-in-past.html

  17. Pacman33 says:

    fatcat1a said~
    “President Obama who called it a mistake” ……

    ……….. Then turned around laughing his rear off at his Goldman Sachs infiltrated administration, completely co-opted from top to bottom, who saw his fingers crossed behind his back.

    Goldman Sachs the most generous contributor in 0bama’s historical, record-breaking, largest contribution total accepted from Wall Street ever, set in 2008.

    http://my.firedoglake.com/fflambeau/2010/04/27/a-list-of-goldman-sachs-people-in-the-obama-government-names-attached-to-the-giant-squids-tentacles/

  18. Did somebody mention something about Goldman Sach? Anyone? Hmmm! I thought I saw it mentioned somewhere on these blogs. Well, just in case someone did…

    Has Goldman Sachs Taken Over the Bush Administration?
    Published on Sunday, August 20, 2006

    http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0820-06.htm

  19. Pacman33 says:

    HEAVY HITTERS
    Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2012

    1 ActBlue $57,248,360

    2 AT&T Inc $47,859,717

    3 AFSCME $46,380,898

    4 NA of R $40,900,026

    5 SEIU $37,767,242

    6 NEA $37,160,699

    7 Goldman Sachs $36,215,437

    8 Amer. Assn for Justice $35,102,554

    9 IBEW $34,514,622

    10 Laborers Union $32,189,450

    http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

  20. Pacman33 says:

    Muck irrelevantly blurts ~
    “Has Goldman Sachs Taken Over the Bush Administration?”

    CommonDreams? 2006? If her comment pertained to anything, those of us who can read knows it wouldn’t matter because content from my link states:

    “One further caveat. The Obama administration is not the first administration that Goldman has infiltrated, although it is perhaps the one that has been most completely co-opted from top to bottom. Recall that former Secretary of the Treasury Paulson in the George W. Bush era came from–Goldman Sachs where he was its chief.”

    Which, as I said, is irrelevant because it is Obama who looks like a slimeball. It is 0bama making a fool of himself shaking his finger at SCOTUS during the SOTU. It is 0bama contradicting himself when talks trash out of the side of his face to his Wall Street Cronies. It is 0bama’s feckless and duped lemmings who attempt to portray him as anti-Wall Street and anti-Corruption. When in fact, 0bama is second to no one.

    Muck you have to be the most polarized, partisan extremist who comments here. At least you still aren’t trying to claim Independent status.

    CommonDreams.org? The Daily Kos? ThinkProgress? What’s next CPUSA?

    How in the world can you lefties say anything about FOX after spending 2 minutes on those sites? Websites like those and alternet make FOX look like PBS. The only thing breaking up the strings of lies on those GUbLOG sites is blatant Communist philosophy/theory.

  21. Please note: I am no longer replying to the weird comments posted by Pacman33, but I do want to state for the record, and this is On Topic, that the statement in my JAN 14, 7:18 AM post:

    “Has Goldman Sachs Taken Over the Bush Administration?”

    … was not my comment. That was simply the title of the article I linked to in that post. I should have enclosed it in quotes to make that clear. Sorry about that.

    One more peripheral comment in the form of a question: Can anyone tell me if Pacman33 is related to LibertyBell, or perhaps they are the same person using two different screen names? There seem to be some strange similarities in the comments made by LibertyBell and Pacman33.

    Thanks!

  22. PAC you have some serious patience. How you continue to try and educate the ignorant is impressive. Lol, they think it’s fine that unions have the power to influence the political process but corporations shouldn’t have the same rights? Unions represent their members interests, corporations represent their employees and shareholders interests. I love that the supreme court was intelligent to recognize this serious deficiency in fairness that had existed. And I was disgusted by the absolute lack of respect President Obama showed the heads of an equal branch of government. It was a low even for this disgusting snake oil salesman.

  23. pantomancer says:

    It is interesting how this thread has wandered from the letter subject.

  24. panto… I think you’ll find that wandering off topic is a common occurrence on these threads as some people attempt to deflect and divert from the debate when they know they are failing to make a convincing argument. It can be interesting at times, and also somewhat of a test of one’s patience.

    As regards the topic, I am still hoping someone, perhaps the Rev., will tell me where Thomas Jefferson said “but during a political campaign we deny one another of these rights.”

    I don’t think that is a totally accurate statement. At least not in today’s America.

  25. pantomancer says:

    Intersting that you would make that observation.

  26. Which observation: wandering off topic or TJ’s quote?

  27. CommonDreams.org? The Daily Kos? ThinkProgress? What’s next CPUSA?

    How in the world can you lefties say anything about FOX after spending 2 minutes on those sites? Websites like those and alternet make FOX look like PBS

    I would have no problem if you only spent 2 minutes at FOX but many of you ONLY rely upon FOX for your “fair and balanced” (snicker) “news”

    And – those sites you list – Which of those claim to be News networks?

  28. ManuelMartini says:

    “It is interesting how this thread has wandered from the letter subject.”

    The name changes, but the whine is the same

  29. ManuelMartini says:

    “they think it’s fine that unions have the power to influence the political process but corporations shouldn’t have the same rights?”

    Tell me when a corporation polled the stock holders to see if they agreed to donate millions to a campaign.

    Unions – being the unity of the membership – do exactly that. You’d have to be a union member to know that.

    Corporate funding of political campaigns are done without the permission of the stockholders – many of whom are union members whose pensions are invested.

*
We welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. ALL CAPS, spam, obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part and abiding by these simple rules.

JavaScript is required to post comments.

Follow the comments on this post with RSS 2.0