Sorry all, no new post this week. I'm heading to the Black Hills to visit Werd Yelof for the 4th. Have a great weekend!
Thanks for reading.
P.S. anyone want to take a stab at PCorc's Barack Obama questions? Anybody? Bueller? To be honest, now that he's gone back on his word on public financing, I'm getting ready to write him off. Not that it's a huge issue, and I recognize that by foregoing public financing he has a huge fundraising advantage, but it's a matter of principle. He claimed he was a supporter of public financing, and that he was going to work with his opponent to reform the system. I'm personally a huge fan of public financing because it limits the amount of money these people can spend on their campaigns. I think it's sick that our economy is in the dumps, people are starving globally because of soaring food prices, it costs $60 to fill up my car (which makes me want to cry), and these people are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on commercials, buttons and billboards. What's wrong with us?
Obama's right to say that the system is broken, but I say the fix is to give each candidate $50 million to start (still a ridiculous sum, but it's a start), and any dollar spent over that amount results in a disqualification. All of a sudden political races are focused on issues, not star power fundraising and lobbyist donations. Policitians will actually have to focus on the people they represent. Imagine...
The solution is not, as Obama would have us believe, to give candidates the right to spend convievably limitless sums of money. I don't really care if you can raise and blow $500 million in the 6 months before election day. It's a question of should you. All things considered, wouldn't a demonstration of fiscal restraint be wise?
This was a severe lapse in integrity for Obama and I'm having a tough time moving past it (especially when my initially high hopes and expectations are taken into account). But don't get too smug, McCainanites...he's no peach. We don't need me to air his dirty laundry to prove he has no soul, but that doesn't mean I won't.
Truthfully, I'm starting to have slightly disconcerting doubts about the viability of democracy. Winston Churchill once said "democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." But I propose a new political philosophy: Intellectual Oligarchy. More on this to come...
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Mr. Gruber, I was also rattled by Obama's decision. However, after listening to his explination, he has a point that's worth considering. Yes, he said the system is broken, but that certainly wasn't all he said.
Basically, his argument is that, with the use of 527's, the entire concept of campaign finance reform is undermined and negated. I doubt I'm blowing anyone's mind right now, but can anyone prove this statement incorrect?
In fact, through the use of 527's, the rules on private donations are thrown out the window, which essentially makes the situation worse. Obama is collecting millions of dollars from voters all across America, each only allowed to donate a relatively modest amount. Is that collected money, at times, a seemingly ridiculous sum? Maybe.
But the alternative includes allowing single donars to personally finance ad campaigns with limitless budgets that don't even require the actual canidate to answer for their content. At least Obama is held accountable for the millions that he's spending. In the end, public funding comes across as little more than a symbolic gesture.
...yet, what a gesture that would have been. This is why I'm still a little disheartened. Obama's not the golden boy. He hasn't found a path that completely bypasses the usual pitfalls of American politics.
But, he is taking positive steps. He condemned MoveOn recently. He rejects Washington lobbyist money (at least significantly moreso than those before him). He genuinely seems to be pushing for an "issue focused" election, something McCain has deviated from recently.
I don't know, he's not the savior, but I still see him as a warrior for the kind of politics that I hope to see soon.
Also, Grubes, we have two canidates that are both dedicated to taking on (in very serious terms) global warming and oil dependency. Considering that these issues are some of the very few that I personally feel are beyond debate, our democracy is doing something right. Now, if we could just get people to stop paying attention to email forwards...
There is so much more to be said on this topic. I guess I'll wait for the inevitable rebuttles before I discuss any further.
I also have to respond to one thing Pcorcs brought up. It's a common charge handed to Obama.
"He claims to be a uniter, but has the most liberal voting record in the Senate."
Well, don't forget when Obama entered the US Senate. Bush was not only in control, but had just recieved his electoral "mandate". The republicans controled both houses and the neo-con agenda was running rampant. What kind of votes do you think Obama was presented with? Is it any wonder that Obama's record is statistically more liberal than a Senator who served alongside both Bush and Clinton?
Also, no one is claiming that Obama is a straight away moderate. He's not. He's what I call a centrist (even though the specific definition of centrist is different than my intepretation). I first got hot on Obama by listening to his podcast that he used to put out. Every week he would discuss an issue that he was voting on, whether it be regarding torture or farm subsidies. He would explain his view, explain the opposing view in very fair terms, and explain why he disagreed with them. They weren't advertisements, they didn't preach to the choir, there weren't any cheap shots used...it was just one side of what I thought could be a very honest discussion. That to me is a centrist. Someone who will look you in the eye, remain respectful, and tell you why they believe what they believe.
Obama isn't perfect on this front. Quite frankly, I wonder if any legitimate presidential canidate could stay completely true to this cause.
During his time in the Illinois Senate, he was famous for bridging the bipartison divide. This is when he had a democratic majority and a finger on the agenda. I do believe that when he is the one setting the stage, he will follow through as a uniter. He'll appoint the best people for the job (regardless of party affiliation), he'll listen to Bernake on economic issues, he'll bring the country along with his ideas instead of intentionally pitting us against one another.
I believe this and don't see proper evidence to not.
Post a Comment