CAN'T I just have a nice civil discussion of public policy issues with all you stupid idiots out there? A civil tongue
can’t be forkedThat's sort of the question state Rep. Terrance Tom is asking voters who disagree with his recent bill to ban large financial contributions to individual candidates from political parties.
See, Tom doesn't only demand the ability to file whatever blatantly partisan bills he wants, he demands to be able to set the tone of discussion about those bills.
No way, Terrance.
Voters from the district you allegedly represent -- of which I am one -- will engage in civil discussion when we are treated with respect. We will be snide and accusatory when you insult our intelligence.
You missed my point. I don't care what kind of smarmy bills you try to get on the books. But when you insult the voters by intentionally mischaracterizing the purpose and timing of the legislation, you forfeit any rights you had to determine the tone of the resulting discussion. You can't slap people in the face and then demand that they respond in a "civil" fashion.
Tom says a recent column of mine was nothing more than name-calling and a personal attack. That's a handy way to deflect criticism, but wrong. Terrance, I called your ACTIONS of submitting a bill clearly designed to cut off the legs of the Republican candidate for governor "reprehensible, perfidious and sneaky." I called your attempt to MISCHARACTERIZE your actions as a "leveling of the playing field" as "treacherous, despotic and intellectually dishonest." That's not name-calling or a personal attack. That's constitutionally protected commentary exposing your sleight-of-tongue.
WHY don't you just 'fess up? This bill was introduced to cripple the Republican candidate for governor. Period. Just tell it the way it is. And then challenge people to put you out of office if they don't agree with you. I'd respect your honesty. But don't try to mislead everyone about your motives, then whine that you are being personally attacked when anyone challenges you.
The truth, Terrance, is that there is a need for campaign finance reform. Especially reform of a system that theoretically limits how much companies can give, but looks away when employees of the company give the maximum and are later reimbursed by their bosses. How about reform for lawmakers who are on the payroll of large politically connected organizations, like, say, Bishop Estate, and then refuse to tell their constituents what kind of work they are doing for the Estate? You are the public servant and we are your employers. We have a right to know what you are doing for Bishop Estate, especially since it is under criminal investigation.
As far as reforming how much money parties can give candidates, the truth is your law specifically hobbles one candidate. And it does it after the race has already begun, not in an off-election year.
Why is it unfair? Imagine the Green Bay Packers winning the Super Bowl 20 years in a row because of their devastating running game. Then one year, they face the San Francisco 49ers, which is only a contender because of its passing game. On the day of the Super Bowl, the rules are changed, not by the NFL or even the courts. But the Green Bay Packers change the rules to say passing will not be allowed. And then one of the Packers -- this would be you -- has the nerve to say you are "leveling the playing field" because neither side will be able to pass.
That is what you are doing. To intentionally mischaracterize it is dishonest and a personal attack on voters.
Insult us if you want, but don't expect us to keep civil tongue afterward.