If there's one topic that separates political nerds like myself and the rest of the relatively politically active, it's campaign finance reform. I have to admit that I only recently learned about it in detail, starting with John McCain's candidacy (talk radio HATES McCain's finance reform and McCain's big hand in it), and ending with my recent Constitutional Law class.
And now the irony is thick in the presidential race concerning finance reform. But I'll get to that in a minute.
First let me attempt to briefly explain the basics of federal campaign finance reform. The basic ill it tries to cure is corruption in politics, particularly big companies and rich individuals donating a load of money to candidates (with the assumption that down the road they can cash in on the favor). Federal Campaign Finance Reform basically sets limits on how much a corporation or individual can contribute to a candidate.
The idea of its proponents is that millions of Americans will care about this issue and check the little box in their tax return to donate $3 to the campaign finance fund. Then federal candidates can take a big chunk of that change to pay for their campaigns if they agree to live by the rules attached to the money regarding how much you can spend and collect. This is supposed to be a way of leveling the playing field and keeping special interests out of politics.
Now back to the thick irony. The concensus among campaign finance reformers (predonimantly liberal) is that republicans have more donors with deeper pockets, and that the bulk of political corruption due to money has been on the right side of the isle. That is now splashing all over the face of the finance reformers for two main reasons:
1. John McCain has reached across the isle and been the face of finance reform, mainly with his bipartisan McCain-Fengold bill. He has gone against his republican coutnerparts who say that the bill and finance reform in general stamps on free speech and vowed to change the way moen yinfluences politics. So, to the dismay of Deomcrats, a republican has been the strongest voice in campaign refinance for the better part of a decade.
2. Barack Obama has broken his pormise to accept public funding and the rules that go with it. It is quite obvious that he has done so because now he has a whole lot of money (broken all the records). Funny how when you can get a whole lot of people to exercise their free speech rights by donating you all of the sudden don't care so much about "change."
So, mum's the word in the mainstream media. Obama is turning out more and more to be a typical Chicago politician, and the press is biting its tongue. Not that anyone woudl really listen or care. Campaign refinance matter only to a small few on extreme sides of the political spectrum. Obama knows that and made another political calculation and threw another principle of "chagne" under the bus.
P.S. I suggest that everyone read this opinion article in the NY Times by David Brooks. A quick refresher on Obama politics.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
I have long taken issue with the over use of both polarizing and buzz words. I feel that the conversation suffers when they are used.
Would you attempt to reword your future thoughts to evade these communication sinkholes?
tj - I would be happy to reword it, but I'm not sure specifically what you are referring to...could you give me a few examples?
Teej! I didn't know it was you when I read and replied to your comment...
How's it going?
But seriously, I don't mean to be polarizing, but I don't think that feeling strongly about something necessarily denotes polarizing or extremism. But seriously, if you think that I am saying certain things that harms the conversation, I'm ready to change it. That is certainly not my intention.
living across enemy lines - should be obvious how this is polarizing
anyonebutobama.blogspot.com - you don't mean that, but you couldn't think of another catchy name
talk radio HATES McCain's finance reform - ambiguous, who is talk radio? Does the XM station "The Partiot" count?
mainstream media - ambiguous
the pill that the mainstream media is feeding us - polarizing
Obama is so condescending - the quote is iffy with me. I just 5 seconds ago got a call from a school district that wants to hire me. I am proud that they see me as a good canidate.
Michell Obama wasn't proud of America until it looked like her husband was going to win the Democratic nomination. - Context and reference. McCain didn't love the US until he was "deprived of her company" http://foxattacks.com/blog/42686-video-proves-fox-erased-mccain-saying-he-really-didn-t-love-america
No lectures on the site or how the material was presented. The comment is what it is and I understand what he means. I think you and I both experienced this sort of sensation until being out of the country for a while.
Barack Hussein Obama - Relevance. Is posting his middle name needed? There is no precisence for need, so far as I am aware. Is this alluding to his middle name and the irrational fear that is lumped with that? Hussein is as common a name as Andrew in part of the world and their customs. I would never think that a person named Andrew would be as horrible a person as Julie Andrews, if she was a crack smoking dictator.
Seriously, check out the first quote in an article on Yahoo.com today. - Just give me the quote. I'll go to the article if I care enough.
so typical of the leftist elite - polarizing
Barack Hussein Obama. - see previous
his elitist group - polarizing
the sadest excuse for a newspaper - not true/not needed. Tabloids are considered newspapers.... and no, they don't tell the men in black anything.
taking shots at BO - explanation needed into the context of the "shots." BO seems to be a less than subtle way of degrading him.... and no I won't go too far and associate it with raceism, though some polorizing people might.
Hill-Billy - hillarious, but not needed
"Political manipulation" is like "business proft" or "charity service." It's not a sin, it's politics. - See previous post on the issue
main stream media - ambiguous
General comment - Try to write inbetween PBS and FOX. PBS is too dry, but FOX doesn't play nice. Don't fall into that trap.
Thanks for the input, it really does make me a better writer and thinker. Let me address af ew of those points:
Calling those who disagree with me "enemies" may well be polarizing, but I stick to that wording. I honestly do feel that there is a intellectual and moral war going on in America. Sure, we're all Americans first, but that's more of a bumper sticker slogan than a reality in politics. There are sides and there are battles, and that is where the metaphore of "behind enemy lines" originated. While that may not be the place that we want politics to be, it is nevertheless where it is.
A better analogy for Obama being proud of us would be you saying that you are proud of your employer for hiring you. Obama wasn't saying that he is proud of himself for the accomplishment (which I think would be completely acceptable), he was saying that he is proud of us for choosing him. You wouldn't ever tell your employer that you are proud of him for hiring you. That would be condecending and inappropriate.
Who is talk radio? I was referring to conservative talk radio - radio personalities like Rush Limbaugh, Hugh Hewitt, Michael Medved, Laura Ingram, Bill Bennet, Michael Gallager, Sean Hannity, Rusty Humphries, and Dennis Prager, all of which oppose the McCain-Feingold bill (except maybe Michael Medved, who seems to be a bit more supportive). I've never listen to or read anything from The Patriot, so I can't say anything about them.
Put into that context, you may be right about Michelle Obama. She may have meant that now she truly knows what it means to be proud of her country. I didn't get that impression from the speech, however. Even so, it bring me back to being condecending to be proud that everyone was smart enough to choose her husband.
Barack Hussein Obama. It IS relevant. We are in reality at war with radical jihad, a group that has their mind bent on America's distruction at any cost. And a large group of these jihadists are Arab. Now, many people may not agree, but during WWII I would not have voted for someone who's father was German, and now I won't vote for someone who's father is Arab. Were all Germans Nazi's? No. Are all Arabs jihadists? Of course not. but the fact remains that I question someone's judgement, empathies, and alligiance when they are so closely associated with the issue, and particularly the enemy (just as many question Bush's judgement because of his father's involvement in the first Iraq war). So, espcially Obama since is so vague about his positions and has such a non-existant record, I have to assume that his heritage, history, and family will paly a key role in his decisions. And that heritage, history, and family are reflected by his name. The fear of his name is not irrational.
I am not a news reporter, so I don't feel a need to be objective or to find a balance between OPB and Fox News. I have to admit that most of your points are valid from a writing/reporting standpoint. And I admit that I use a lot of hyperbole and satire. But that is my perrogative when I am writing at least partially as an expression of myself. If this were a real newspaper and my job was to give the facts and only the facts to my readers, I would take a much different approach.
In the end, however, these are my opinions, and the satire, polarization, and jokes are a part of what is in my mind. And that's a major reason for this blog - to show people what's up there.
On the "enemies" in your war, for I do not see war. In every direction [not both sides] I see people who are overly self interested, people who tow the party line in blind faith, and/or people who are too apathetic to hold any real sense of community or nationalism - I reference the Stanford Prison Experiment. If you treat them like prisoners, they will act the part. I feel that standing your ground, so long as reason, logic, and faith keep you there, is important. Coupled with that needs to be a tempered tongue. From personal experience and observation of others, I have almost never seen anyone change opinions for the better when yelled at, made fun of, etc. Is the aim, and should it be thus, of politics to slander maim and kill the "others," to get what you want, to convince and to compromise [not all issues need compromise], or to address the needs of the whole and the parts? Stand your ground on your opinion, but compromise in tone and verbiage. I have changed the minds of many people, in many areas, by being firm and patient... and by comfortable open discourse.
After reading the quote another 10 times, the wording does seem to be in a condescending tone. Two thoughts on that. One, it could have been a flubbed line that he recovered from incorrectly. Completely hypothetical, which is OK because... Two, I believe a person to be the sum total of actions, decisions, desires, etc. If there is a trend of condescending remarks... then he very well could be. The remark, as it stands alone, is condescending. Intent and history make him as a whole condescending. I have not seen that intent or history, but I also haven't looked for it.
We have a neighbor who works on his truck with The Patriot on, that is the only reason I know the name.
I didn't see or listen to the speech, so I can't comment further. Visual and audio feedback add a lot to the understanding. I was just pointing out another plausible alternative and it's support. BTW, watch Vantage Point when you can.
I do not support this line of thought at all. I think of McCarthyism, Nazi Germany, Japanese concentration camps, and Rwanda. I believe it to be irrational and unnecessary fearmongering. I have it on good authority from several individuals, from the two primary political parties, that teach World Religion classes, that there is nothing in the text or mainstream teachings of Islam that would pose a threat to our nation, or any other. It is the radicals who twist it and use it as leverage. If the current and last several Presidents of our own country actually lived their religions, this would be a far better place. As I understand the history of several Arab countries, I can see why they would be mad at us. We have repeatedly gone over there and kicked the hornets nest over the last 100 years. Yes, they have a problem holding grudges. No, the transgressions of our ancestors did not warrant attacks on any of the nations that have been attacked. Based solely on his Islamic background, I would not be opposed to voting for him. I could go on with examples, but I know that there is likely nothing in here that will convince your opinion to change and that adding more would increase the time spent by the both of us.
You are not required to change anything, and you have not misrepresented your intentions. I am only stating what changes might be made to increase my likelihood of reading and sell you on ideas that I have on how to present material so that an atmosphere of open discussion can occur.
TJ: What we need to understand here is that this is a news anylasis and opinion column, as opposed to a news reporting and journalistic column. Tools such as satire, puns, hyperbole, superlatives, phrase coining, and other plays on words are viable literary tactics when expressing OPINION, and help the reader to gain a sense of tone and intent. I also completely disagree with your take on Arab countries having a right to be mad at us for "kicking the hornet's nest" but for the sake of time, I'll have to save that for another time.
COOHE: Although I wouldn't dream of voting for Obama, I agree with Tj regarding your (and others') usage of Obama's middle name (although I loved the BO bit). I don't think it's relevant or useful, and I think he's been very clear (not vague, as you state) about his Christian beliefs, at least verbally. I've also steered clear of your anti-Obama website, simply because I'm turned off by negative campaigning. Not because I don't think these people need to be called out (thank goodness the Jeremiah Wright scandal came to light - I think that was important for the public to know), but because I tend to want to focus on learning about SOLUTIONS the candidates can present, rather than skeletons in the closet. On the other hand, I understand the need to educate the undecided public, if there still is such a thing, and maybe I've just tuned it out because I don't need any more convincing that Obama's not my man.
Negative campaigning? you mean scrutiny? If Obama presented any solutions then maybe we could be talking about that. However, he has purposefully left us with no real strategies to talk about and no record record to analyze. Plus, my Obama blog is not designed to expose old mistresses or long-long love children, it's designed to analyze his campaign, his promises, his rhetoric, his past, and what all that might tell us about what kind of preseident he would be.
Let me make this clear: I DO NOT THINK OBAMA IS MUSLIM. Gosh. Why is this so hard for people to understand? Let me give you an analogy that explains my fear. Remember the polygamist colony in Texas and that whole mascarade? I don't support polygamy and I'm not a polygamist, but I have had a deep sense of empathy for the people there as the thing has unfolded. Why? Because I feel a connection with them due to my ancestry, background, and heritage. If there were tons of Mormon splinter groups blowing up buildings and killing Americans, then I would expect people to be wary of voting for someone like me (or mitt for that matter). Likewise, I have to assume that Obama feels a connection to Arab and Muslim communities that could seriously impair his judgement. I would have a hard time ordering a raid on a polygamist colony if I knew they were plotting a huge terrorist attack, and I think that Obama would have the same hesitation.
Does that make sense? I think America deserves to know Obama's background, because he acts like he's just another typical black American, born and raised in the ghetto with the badge of slavery on his chest. But that is just not true.
Call it fearmongering if you want, but truth is truth.
When I mentioned Obama's Christianity, I was refering to a previous post where it sounded like you implied that he had been vague about his beliefs (can't find the quote now), not that you thought he was secretly Muslim. For the record, I would MUCH rather Obama be prez than Hillary. She scares the living heck out of me and I believe the Clintons to be incredibly corrupt. No, TJ, I have no specific references from reliable sources to back that hunch up. I just get the feeling the Clintons are shifty characters, and I don't trust them.
I still disagree with you about using Obama's middle name. I would be horrified if people assumed Mitt to be sympathetic to the FLDS polygamist cults.
Well Obama's middle name is Hussein. Is it more misleading to talk openly about it or to hide it? Whatever happened the cries for transparency? Or is that only when the truth we want to be transparent doesn't "scare" anyone?
Um..... blogspot ate my post from yesterday....
Post a Comment