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
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.