How Could Anyone Want This?

Don't get me wrong, I'm no fan of McCain. He wasn't my first choice for presidential candidate - or even my second, third, fourth or fifth. However, he's the least of the evils because at least he isn't a radical Marxist while Obama may well be their poster boy.

At first I dismissed the chatter as typical talk radio fodder. But as I learn more, I become increasingly concerned. And my concern is twofold: Not only are the facts disturbing but that fact that they're being ignored by the mainstream media is downright chilling.

The simplest way to address these pressing issues is to go the source. I've downloaded Obama's Blueprint for Change to take you through the inconsistencies one by one.

The foundation of his platform for "change" is lobbyist reform & transparency in government. This is a direct quote from the summation of the document: "Obama will close the revolving door between the executive branch and K-Street lobbying shops. Obama’s appointees will serve the American people, not their own financial interests." This quote is taken from page 5: "A High Standard Unlike other candidates Obama’s campaign refuses to accept contributions from Washington lobbyists and political action committees."

The problem here is that much of his life & his ties are shrouded in secrecy while all of these facts are being ignored by the media. Responsible news sources such as the Boston Globe, The Los Angeles Times, Slate & many others have repeatedly provided factual evidence not only that Obama isn't living up to his own campaign finance claims but also that he's accepting money from sources he beats up in the media.

The GOP has a compelling compilation of quotes & sources here. I've read all of the cited articles to verify for myself that every quote is complete & true. For a quick synopsis of some of the major points in this discussion, there's a great summary posted here on Yahoo Answers. I've only tracked down about half of these claims so far but all of them have panned out as completely true & verifiable. Here are the main points:

The Obama campaign employs former federal lobbyists & uses volunteer advisors who also happen to be current lobbyists.

The campaign has steadfastly refused to release a list of outside advisors.

Obama accepts donations from spouses & partners of active lobbyists, as well as holding campaign functions in the offices of organizations engaged in lobbying.

He also refuses money from groups lobbying for specific industries, like pharmaceuticals, but does accept money from executives of the corporations who hire those same lobbyists.

This entire issue is a new platform created for his Presidential bid, as he always accepted money from lobbyists & PAC's (as well as worked with them) during his time as an Illinois state rep & also as a federal Senator. In fact, his state campaigns were about 2/3 funded by these sources.

Some of the super delegates pledged to Obama are current federal lobbyists.

He's making a whole Presidential bid out of crucifying his opponents in the media while he's doing the same damn thing & has been for a long time. At least everyone else owns up to it. By hiding the facts, he's preventing voters from making an informed choice. Since we know that all of the candidates are tied to special interests, we have a right to know exactly what those special interests are & the degree of the ties before casting our vote. Yet the Obama campaign is going to great pains to withhold this information.

Only the candidate benefits when voters are uninformed or misinformed so it's an extremely self-serving tactic. I don't appreciate any candidate presupposing what I do or do not need to know. Surely such an attitude isn't helping the Obama disciples dispel the self-appointed messiah myth the like to whine about so much.

And don't think for a minute that these are the only frightening hidden ties of Obama. Stay tuned for further information on Rev. Meeks, Public Allies, George Soros, William Ayers & many of the other questionable allegiances this would-be President would force on this country, none of which are in the best interests of America or the American people.

Once Upon a Time

I've been feeling a little uncomfortable about a recent post. I'm a firm believer that if you're going to criticize something you must also offer suggestions for improvement so I'm going to rectify my oversight right now.

The average citizen needs to view politics with a more critical eye. You don’t have to join things or campaign or do anything real involved. There are plenty of ways to make a difference without spending a lot of your time & energy. Some examples:

1. I routinely receive flyers from my state rep, touting his office as the place to go to have his staff fill out forms for you. Umm, that’s not what we pay them to do.

Why doesn't he/his staff organize professionals & organizations in the community to hold workshops on those topics? This is a win-win for everyone – you know, teach a man to fish & all that.

If a lowly construction purchasing manager can toss that out off the cuff after receiving just one stupid glossy brochure, then surely some fool in the politician’s office should have thought of it by now. If they have, they aren’t acting on it.

So to all of my neighbors: why are you still voting for this useless ball of muck? It’s not as though he’s accomplishing anything to offset such uselessness, as this is just one tiny, simple example of his gross negligence. If your productivity was nil, would you get to keep your job?

2. I’m sick & tired of hearing a person say that they don’t like a politician but voted for him because of (insert one tiny self-serving reason here, which doesn’t nearly come close to outweighing the harm he’s done). Instead of voting for someone you don’t truly support, vote for someone else then demand that the newly elected official (whatever self-serving thing you expect, regardless of the detriment to society as a whole).

Many local senior citizens like Rendell because of Pace, the state-subsidized prescription drug program that makes medications affordable for seniors. I know more than a few seniors whose only political comments pertain to how much he sucks as Governor, for various reasons. At the same time, every single one of them will admit that they “had” to vote for him because without him, their prescriptions would cost a lot more.

Well here’s a solution that will keep seniors in cheap meds & Rendell out of office in the future: Let’s all bombard our state reps/senators to demand that pharmaceutical companies stop lobbying politicians in PA. Rather than spending millions wining, dining & buying our politicos, the lobbyists should have to donate that money into a fund. That fund will then be used to subsidize the atrociously high cost of prescription drugs for PA seniors in the PaceNet program.

According to a 2006 article from the Post-Gazette, lobbyist spending increases each year, with the most dramatic increases coming from health & pharmaceutical companies. In the first quarter alone of 2005, drug companies spent $1.3 million. Imagine how many affordable prescriptions that would have subsidized.

3. Speaking of lobbyists, why are they allowed to even function? We're paying our politicians to do a job but then these special interest groups pay them much more to work against our best interests.

So let's require special interest groups to lobby the voters instead of the elected officials. The lobbyists would still have their puppets in office but at least the voters would be pulling some of the strings for a change.

Rather than spending millions wooing our politicians, the groups could spend that money on the masses. That PG article tells us that the health care lobby spent $9.1 million in the first quarter of 2005 alone. How many uninsured Pennsylvanians would have had health coverage if the money had been spent on voters instead of politicians?

In the same period, telecommunications lobbies spent $3.1 million. Just keep that in mind every time Comcast raises your rates or you write a $30 check for a landline you've used for less than 20 minutes this month.

4. Have you ever wondered why political & legislative information is so hard to come by? You hear soundbites in the media & irrelevant personal laundry aired in commercials during election season. The local newspapers pay lip service to voters by publishing disgustingly superficial voting guides. Other than that, you've got to search for any inkling of what's going on. There's a cumbersome system for looking up bills & votes on the state website. Certain groups publicize special interest issues on their own websites. But that's about the extent of it.

Wouldn't it be fantastic if there were a website that detailed our elected officials in their entirety? I've suggested this to various local media outlets, political watchdog groups, etc. but have not been able to generate any support whatsoever.

I truly believe that if the information were out there, more people would pay attention. It would have to be a non-partisan effort, giving out clean, clear facts with no editorializing. It should list each rep's resume, time in office & what they have accomplished. What legislation have they sponsored or spoken out against & what reasons did they give? It should list committee assignments as well as the person's role on the committee & the accomplishments of the committee. It should list all affiliated lobbyists, what they give & how much.

A handful of people from each voting district would be responsible for gathering facts, receiving submissions from the public & posting the information. It would take some time to set up, but once in place could be easily updated & archived. It would be a huge asset to the community. People would know real details, not just the dirt & fluff of election season TV spots. Imagine the change for the better with a better-informed voting populace.

The fact that such a useful, informative & powerful tool is of little interest even to the politically savvy is sad. We're living in political dark ages in the United States of America in 2007.