Slashdot Mirror
Silicon Valley Swings To Republicans
phantomfive writes Silicon Valley is making a mark in Washington as Google has recently replaced Goldman as the largest lobbyist, but until recently, most of the money from Silicon Valley went to democratic candidates. In 2014, that has changed, and Republicans are getting most of the money. Why the change? Gordon Crovitz suggests it's because Harry Reid blocked patent reform. Reid gets a large chunk of donations from trial lawyers, who oppose the reform.
... and not the voting of the people that determines if an area is leaning to one party or the other.
Last time I was subjected to a new round of their peace and prosperity, I had to look for a new job.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Gotta be Harry Reid blocking patent reform.
Can't be Obamacare failures, loss of press freedom, lowest labor force participation in many decades, incompetence on Ebola, lack of plans for ISIS, overweening regulation, politicization of DoJ and IRS, extrajudicial killings of US citizens, crony capitalism bailouts of banks and GM, increasing levels of poverty, highest levels of food stamp use ever.
Naaah, none of that. It's gotta be just Harry Reid.
If you think the peace and prosperity (or war and destruction) are simply a matter of whether the red team wins or blue team wins in a game influenced by numerous vested interests, you are in for a surprise.
Let's just put that out there, with 2 years to do whatever they wanted with a supermajority, and then 6 years of controlling the senate and presidency, the rich have gotten richer, the middle class has been destroyed, and the progressives keep trotting out the same "Blame Bush" canard while doing their best to sabotage the few remaining Democrats. All my party has left are the corporatists (Reid, Pelosi, etc) and a bunch of screaming tantrums demanding class warfare. At this rate, the Republicans deserve to win, just for being less dangerous and more honest about their extremism.
I disagree with the thesis that silicon valley is in some way "swinging" toward the Republican party. It's more like the writing was on the wall which way the wind was blowing this midterm and the only way to have any influence or say on policy in Washington is via contributions. As in contributed == friend, didn't contribute == not friend. That's all it is. In 8 years (or whatever) when it's swinging the other direction again money will be flowing back the other direction. It's nothing more or less than that. Be on the good side of the people in power. It's the only way to get anything done. A lot of businesses actually contribute to both parties every election cycle, even if one is more heavily contributed to than the other. Just want to be on the good side for the next wind change.
"UNIX is very simple, it just needs a genius to understand its simplicity." -Dennis Ritchie
A non-trivial fraction of Republicans are pro-markets, rather than pro-business, which is more than can be said for any number of Democrats. And the pro-market faction tends to oppose government-sanctioned monopolies.
Basically, if democrats refuse to listen to us - this is what they'll get.
I'm as liberal as people get, but that NSA thing pissed me off so bad that I consider voting Republican.
For those, who say that Republicans will not act on NSA either, I say this: Listen, elections is what in game theory considered a repeat game. In such situations it's often advantageous to enforce beneficial cooperation by employing fear of retaliation. And we're not bluffing this time...
"No Country for Old Men" tactics if you wish.
The practice of paid lobbying ought to be outlawed altogether
Absolutely! Because if 10,000 people all have the same thing on their minds, and want to present their case to a legislator in the interests of getting their issue some attention in the House or the Senate, then it makes much more sense for all 10,000 of them to travel to DC and attempt to get some face time with the same one politician (say, the chairperson of whatever committee might impact the way legislation surrounding the topic in question is handled). Yes, that's FAR more efficient than those same 10,000 people pooling a much smaller share of each of their resources and time, and sending a single person to have a single sit-down with that same legislator. We certainly wouldn't want to ask someone who already knows everyone involved, and who understands how the legislature works, to choose the best time and circumstance and context in which to bring up something important. No, that's far too sensible - it's much better if we make it AGAINST THE LAW for people to exercise the first amendment rights to assemble and talk to their government.
Asking one person to talk to your representative on behalf of a bunch of you IS NOT CIRCUMVENTING DEMOCRACY. It's using your damn head.
How does employing a lobbyist to efficiently do what 10,000 of you would do separately equate to "buying" legislation any more than does 10,000 of you individually doing exactly the same thing? Are you suggesting that 10,000 of you shouldn't be allowed to talk to your representatives, or show support for their campaigns, or saying out loud (online, in a newspaper, or a media ad) that you think a given referendum, law, or politician is doing something wrong? Isn't that exactly the point of democracy? Or are you suggesting that campaigns and political expression should be conducted entirely with taxpayer dollars, no matter who the candidate is or how moonbat crazy they are? Personally, I'd like to choose whether and to whom my financial support goes to, when it comes to campaigns. You equate supporting campaigns with buying legislation, but propose no alternative. The only other options are to either force media companies to provide their services for free (government compulsion to support people who you may not actually support) to any old single-topic obsessive who wants to grind some political axe ("911 Truthers For Mars Exploration By Separated Twins!"), or to tell people they're not allowed to spend money to communicate about their politics - something the first amendment specifically protects from people like you, which is a good thing.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
But I would really like to hear one person such as yourself explain, by the numbers, how this is not a time of relative peace and prosperity? Especially, say, as compared to 10 years ago. I see tens of thousands fewer dying in American wars, and a booming stock market. It's like Clinton all over again, except without a salacious sex scandal.
What is it you are thinking of when you say it? (With numbers please).
Foundationally, lobbying is a good thing. It allows for a certain form of representation. What lobbying has turned into these days is disgusting. I know a lobbyist and know the difference between the two.
This kind of lobbying would have a lot less influence if we repealed the 17th amendment (direct election of senators). While popular election of senators is sold as "the people's voice", that is already achieved by the House of Representatives as originally intended. And what really happens is senators get elected and stop representing their constituents as soon as wheels hit the runway in DC and come under the influence of lobbyists, and other congressmen offering them deals, committee positions, etc. If senators were once again commissioned by their state legislatures, the state could recall them when they stop representing the state's interests.
Instead, the existing power structures will cry about "muffling the voice of the people" if you repeal the 17th amendment, but in reality it would keep a leash on these supposed public servants who somehow end up staying in power for decades and becoming disproportionately richer at the end of their senatorial run by way of things like shady land deals that benefit them in roundabout ways (I'm looking at you Harry and Nancy; both have favored legislation that effectively increases the value of their land investments - shock!).
"Now, I doubt any of you would prefer a rolled up newspaper as a weapon against a dictator or a criminal intruder."
As we see here, Democrats are experts in projection. That's why they're going to get creamed in the election.
Not that a Republican government will be much better, of course.
Keep in mind, the amount of cable-news time that can be devoted to something has no relation to how big an event it actually is.
Make every single elected official list their top 5 corporate sponsors next to their name on the ballot.
Also every single bit of legislation that is not written by said congress critter needs to have the same thing we require on all ad's: This law bought by evil corporation here
Blame the following issues on Obama's amateur hour policies:
1. Isis - directly resulted from Obama's premature pullout in Iraq and subsequent flip-flop on intervening in Syria
2. Benghazi
3. Gridlock - if he hadn't rammed through his healthcare bill without compromising with Republicans, they'd be much better at doing the political horse-trading it takes to work across party lines to get things done. By pushing it without any buy-in from the other party - something that has never been done for a law on this scale before - he inaugurated a new era of do-nothing politics. The Republicans have held a grudge ever since. Hopefully when Harry Reid is out of the Senate majority post next week, we'll finally get some bills to the White House, where they're sure to be vetoed. He's been protecting Obama for years, preventing him from taking a formal stance on so many bipartisan initiatives by preventing bills from coming to the senate floor for a vote. O's going to pay a political price for each veto, I'm sure.
4. Mexican drug cartels invading Texas and Arizona
5. Russia's return to cold war stance, thousands dead in Ukraine
6. China's emergence as a belligerent military power in the pacific region
7. Botched diplomacy with China, Brazil, India, Russia, Europe, Egypt, Israel, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the list goes on and on...
You WAY overestimate the actual power POTUS has.
You have to be a little insane to support either party, if all you are talking about is ideology.
If you are a businessman, ideology takes a back seat: gay marriage, abortion, and other wedge issues mean little. The parties are almost identical on all important issues, so you put your money wherever your direct interests lie.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Bush let microsoft off. Bad example.
Not in national office, and furiously shaking their fists at the neo- and social- conservatives who hijacked the party.
You seem to completely ignore the other branch of government called Congress who controls the money. When you brought up Benghazi, you lost all credibility with me.
Some selected examples of Republican opposition to monopolies; note that both Republicans and Democrats have opposed them at various times, but you asked for Republican examples, so here are some Republican examples:
Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1956
IBM Consent decree
Eisenhower was not a modern Republican. He'd not have an inkling of a chance to be permitted to run for either party these days. He's the guy who sent the army to desegregate the Southern schools. He's the one who warned about the military industrial complex. If you want to see what happens to people who think out of the box in our times, look up Derek Khanna.
Most new hires are scheduled for under 40 hours a week. They don't want to provide health care. Consider yourself lucky now.
Life is not for the lazy.
and you do remember the past 6 years have been more of the exact same thing, but even more expensive???
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
MighyYar's right, and this is coming from a bleeding heart California liberal that is not happy the GOP is going to get rewarded for its antics with increased power in DC, and is also really not happy that Silicon Valley (also known as where I work and live) is starting to tilt to the right.
The current difference between the two parties right now is pretty solely on wedge issues. They have the same monetary policy, the same foreign policy, neither party is realistic about tax policy on the middle class (it needs to be higher, along with the high earners), neither party wants to bust the cap on Social Security and Medicare (while I appreciate the extra bucks at the end of the year, I think those programs need it more than me), etc.
For all the hype about the "core differences" in the 2012 election, Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama were so close on the political compass that it was a John Jackson vs. Jack Johnson situation.
I happen to feel that the social issues are important enough for the Democratic party to be the clear choice, but to get back to MightyYar's point -- Silicon Valley is very business-driven, and CA law would preserve nearly all protections that the Republicans could take away at the federal level (barring the PPACA) as far social politics are concerned. From a Silicon Valley business perspective, both parties are roughly the same when considering the direct effect they'd have, and even more so when you realize that FWD.US and other H1-B visa supporters are realizing that they only way they'll get those increased H1-Bs they want is to get some sort of immigration reform done, even if that means supporting an odious Republican policy rather than a Democratic solution that isn't showing any signs of life.
Not to mention that most Republicans in the Bay Area would be considered Democrats down in Bakersfield or Orange County.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
-- Arthur C. Clarke
I blame bush for what he caused. I blame Clinton for the dot bomb. I blame Obama for the crap he caused(expanding wiretaps anyone)
Why is it when the republicans controlled both houses and the presidency they didn't fix the obvious errors that the democrats did? Why are you blame 2 years of democrats controlling congress instead of bush. If republicans when the senate tomorrow and two years from now the economy crashes again will you blame Obama or the republicans?
Think about it. i would bet you would still blame someone else even when the situation is reversed. Which it very well could be tomorrow.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
You have to be a little insane to support either party, if all you are talking about is ideology.
If you are a businessman, ideology takes a back seat: gay marriage, abortion, and other wedge issues mean little.
Not to hear your typical Republican tell it. You have to hand it to the Republican party. They have managed to place those "meaningless" issues front and center for over two decades now. Despite their bald hypocrisy on such issues, they have managed to keep a large block of voters convinced that keeping homosexuals from getting married and depriving women of the right to control their own bodies were issues of critical importance, enough so that the sheep continue to vote against their own self interests.
Democrats are just as guilty. There are many, many people who will vote on one side or the other based solely on one or more wedge issues, and Democrats seek these people out just as the Republicans do. As much as I support gay marriage, I cannot tell anyone with a straight face that this is an important issue for the country as a whole.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Not to mention blaming gridlock on Obama. When he took office, the Republicans publicly said their goal was to block everything he wanted, no compromise.
When Obama took office, the Republicans tried to act in a bi-partisan manner, by supporting his stimulus bill (or rather, it was in their interest, since Obama was so popular). It wasn't until the unpopular healthcare bill came up that they opposed him. They didn't even state that their goal was to block everything he wanted until after that.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
The scale of the crap that the Republican party does is completely fucked up.
Yes, like when George Bush started monitoring all of our phone conversations? That sucked - I'm sure glad the Democrats fixed that when they assumed power.
Or when George Bush started "drone diplomacy"? I'm sure glad that Obama put an end to all of those drone attacks.
That huge Wall Street bailout? Yes, I'm sure glad that Obama came in and ended that program.
How about "Gitmo"? Obama really shined when he closed that down.
He got us out of Iraq and Afghanistan, too!
Under Bush, we treated illegal immigrants shamefully, but Obama has really fixed that, too!
I'm sorry, but the difference between Republicans and Democrats in recent history has been a military that is slightly more gay and slightly more people on some kind of government assistance for healthcare (be it Medicaid or an "Obamacare" subsidy). Of course, George Bush enacted Medicare expansion as well, so...
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
> "Iraq is on fire with women and children being sold into slavery or have their heads cut off and placed on stakes like the men."
Hmmm. I wonder how that came to be. I think someone went and invaded the country and totally trashed its infrastructure and and political power structure. Any guesses who that might have been? I mean Saddam was an asshole and a murderer too, but at least the average Iraqi didn't have to worry about being blown up by a car bomb or beheaded by the thousands by ISIS, right? They're both bad, no doubt about it, but one is definitely worse. Like Saddam in charge was like having HIV, and ISIS in your country is like having ebola. All things being equal most people would go for the HIV if it was an either/or choice.
If I'm reading the intent of your point correctly you look to absolve Bush and co of all blame for the mess Iraq is currently in, and blame Obama for not cleaning Bush's mess up properly despite massive public calls to bring everyone home from Iraq.
And Obama fixed that, didn't he? If only he had passed some kind of comprehensive health legislation where he had an opportunity to fix that issue...
-Zippy
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.