Public Campaign Action Fund - Mitch McConnell - Comments

mhnnehvd

Tue, 13 May 2008 22:53:31 -0500

[URL=http://fbamrqnf.com]xclwwqrk[/URL] binbksgk bchdgjli http://iodjhnjt.com fqmmrtdu fcoxzoml

hcxyztjv

Tue, 13 May 2008 21:30:56 -0500

[URL=http://bsyvvoon.com]kjwogwip[/URL] wywennsp jixgvoza http://llbxjqvk.com rwdiuwiu jkthzppz

Your use of the drupal

Sun, 06 Jan 2008 17:17:45 -0500

Your use of the drupal platform is remarkable, keep up the good work.

Thanks

Tue, 11 Dec 2007 10:10:28 -0500

Noted and corrected -- guess my brain left early for the weekend!

AK stands for Alaska. He is

Mon, 10 Dec 2007 13:18:52 -0500

AK stands for Alaska. He is not from Alaska.

SCHIP

Sat, 27 Oct 2007 21:32:28 -0500

The bill vetoed by President Bush would not have given households with an AGI of $82,000 eligibility for SCHIP. The State of New York recently asked for permission to extend SCHIP eligibility in New York so that those families would have been eligible. The Bush Administration rejected that request. The bill that was vetoed by President Bush would not have changed that situation.

SCIP

Sun, 21 Oct 2007 14:03:38 -0500

I'm surprised that you would support a bill that finances health care insurance for 25 yr olds whose household income is 82,000 AGI (much higher in terms of gross pay) on the backs of smokers who tend to be poor and lower income working families.

Voter Concern

Sun, 30 Sep 2007 12:23:39 -0500

Mitch has really never put much into voter concern so this issue wouldn't be an exception. As Bush alienates himself more from the American voters (considering he isn't running for reelection) and Mitch continues to march lockstep (i.e. SCHIP), I'm hoping to see his approval rating drop. Time will tell. Andy

Support affordable medical care insurance for all children

Fri, 28 Sep 2007 15:05:20 -0500

It won't be a brighter future with no health care for our youth today.

health insurance for kids

Thu, 27 Sep 2007 23:03:03 -0500

I PLEAD WITH YOU TO INSURE OUR CHILDREN.

Ad and Clean Elections

Fri, 07 Sep 2007 14:25:35 -0500

Thank you all for posting your comments here -- it is great to see debate on this issue. Public Campaign Action Fund, in addition to advocating for Clean Elections has as a part of its mission the goal to raise awareness about ties between special interest money and legislators and the unfavorable policy atmosphere that results. Many of our ad campaigns have this focus. We have found it's an important component in defining the problem which Clean Elections addresses and brings lots of new people to the work. The majority of our work, and the work of our sister org Public Campaign is spreading the word about Clean Elections which, as you rightly pointed out, many voters think is a great idea once they've heard about it. So, we do both!

The Ad has the wrong Focus

Fri, 07 Sep 2007 12:53:39 -0500

I'm not sure I understand your post. I would argue that the ad does not represent Clean Elections so much as it bashes another candidate. Clean Elections asks for our money to run the ad, but I don't see how it gets across the clean elections message. I really doubt that many people will go to the website (listed for three seconds at the end of the add) which is the ONLY reference to clean elections in the entire ad! Why don't we spend the money sending informational packets to registered voters? Most of my friends have never even heard of clean elections, but when I explain it they think its a great idea. "Protesting is good, having an alternative is better" -Jim Wallis

Claim that AD is off target

Thu, 06 Sep 2007 20:18:32 -0500

Wrong! Clearly you are not looking at this ad subjectively. You are looking at this ad as a smear campaign. Try looking at this ad again, thinking how low some people have to go, in order to get enough money to run their reelection campaign just to keep that power. This AD clearly shows a great need for public campaign financing and while it is being set up, include sharp teeth in this, that everyone, regardless of their wealth, must participate in this manner of obtaining all of their campaign money for all federal elective positions and no other money will be acceptable from anyone! Otherwise a person with the wealth of someone like Mr. Bill Gates could practically buy the presidency. Witness the recent event of the Mayor of NYC, Mr. Bloomberg, a multi billionaire thinking of running for President, but changed his mind. Imagine such a person with fewer scruples, but same amount of money and willing to spend almost all of those multibillions for that office! Then if someone did something like that ad shows being done, nail that person because it would not be needed for reelection, it would be for themself.

This ad is off target

Thu, 06 Sep 2007 12:15:08 -0500

The ad weakens the campaign for publicly financed elections. It is obviously partisan and is an example of EXACTLY what we condemn, on principle: buying air time for negative attack ads! PFCs is not a partisan issue. In any case, the issues you tried to use as fulcrums, for triangulation (information devices, and the body armor issue) are offensive to experts in those two domains. You're outside your depth and you took the opposite position to experts working to inform educate and communicate in the third world with information devices, such as Negroponte.

Campaign Finance Reform or Candidate Bashing?

Thu, 06 Sep 2007 11:11:24 -0500

I fail to see how this ad promotes the adoption of clean elections. In all honesty it looks like a smear ad invented by Mr. McConnel's opponents. I have a hard time believing that this furthers the clean election cause.
Also, the Afghani tribesmen were portrayed as automatic rifle toting terrorists, which I find down right insulting.
Overall, I'm not impressed with the advertisement and I don't see how it furthers Clean Elections. I don't know why we're being asked to pay for it.