Third Party & Independents: Archives

David,

I have to confess that as of this date I have to say that I am giving Obama the edge myself. He is the only candidate to date that I get a feel of genuiness from. And I like his message. My son married a few weekends ago. At the reception I happended to walk in on a conversation that a lot of his friends were haveing concerning the next president. These are all mid to upper twenties people with college degrees and mostly succesful careers to date. I was surprised to find an excitement and awareness that I can not recall ever seeing in young people with regards to voting and government. Obama was the key talking point and they all were disgusted with the current state of affairs in government. That is to say they are aware of and very turned off by corruption and the fact that they do not feel that there are many politicians they can trust to do the right thing. Obama seems to reach them with a clear and what seems to be an honest relevant message of reform in government. One thing they were all in agreement on was that as far as they were concerned Obama is the candidate that will best serve their future needs.

I think most people today are too quick to dismiss the young voters of this country as not being of much consequence. I believe this to be a falicy with this new generation as I think they are much more aware and concerned than for example mine was at their age. These young people know what they want and they fully expect to be given a fair chance at success. From what I have witnessed I do believe they are ready to step up to the plate and place their votes where they feel it will do them the most good. They look at the older politicians and see nothing but bigotry, corruption, lies and an uncertain future. They are ready for change and they are ready to do whatever is necesary to insure that change to promote a good and fruitful future for themselves.

ILdem, with this announcement today by Obama, I am struck by the potential of his garnering the youth vote in similar fashion as Robert Kennedy did, before being assassinated, by vowing to take on the entrenched vested interests corrupting our government’s decisions and policies.

David

That is an interesting and viable thought. There are many who believe the mob was vested in Johns as well as Roberts death. They both threatened the means of an entrenched society of corrupted wealth. I do not know if it is possible to completely remove corruption from our government. But I think it is time somebody tried rather than just talk about it. That man or woman would indeed be an american hero if they can be succesful in doing so. I do believe the american people have had about all they are willing to take with regards to an accepted degree of corruption in government. The notion that some corruption in government is acceptable and just a fact of life is totally and irresponsibly wrong. I for one will vote in a moment for the person that indicates to me that they are willing to pursue this endeavor with an all out effort.

This is the first time a major party presidential candidate has made taking on the wealthy corporate special interest’s control of government, a part of their campaign platform.

Aside from the fact that “taking on wealthy corporate special interests” has been a favorite rhetorical gambit for presidential candidates for, oh, over 200 years now, let’s not ignore the incredibly ridiculous nature of what Obama is proposing here.

And anyone joining his administration would not be allowed to work on issues related to their former employers for at least two years.

That’s great. Now we can finally have an Education Secretary who has no experience in the schools, a Treasury Secretary with no ties to any banks or investment firms, a Surgeon General who has never seen the inside of a hospital, and an Attorney General who has never worked for a law firm. And so on. That’s just brilliant.

I have a better idea.

If Obama wants to show that the precious body fluids of his administration will never be tainted by special interests, why doesn’t he make and follow a rule for himself instead of making rules for other people in his imaginary administration?

Instead of telling others what they can do before and after they work for him, why not refuse to accept any campaign contributions from wealthy special interests now? Right now, while he’s a presidential candidate instead of the president? Oops… that’s not gonna happen.

Obama is a rank hypocrite. He wants that wealthy special interest money for himself and will gladly accept as much of it as he can get (as he has been doing with gleeful abandon), but is perfectly ready to forbid his subordinates from doing the same if that makes him look like some kind of saint in the eyes of liberal activists and the readers of the Washington Post.

Loyal Opp., once again, you misunderstand the written word. The word former is crucial to understanding what is being said. The word former, means after serving in the White House, they would not be permitted to work for their former employer as a lobbyist for at least two years.

Doesn’t say one word about their experience and employers BEFORE they come to the White house.

A careful read is important before quoting something and then displaying a misunderstanding of what was quoted, in a public forum.

David, the subtitle of that article about Obama’s promise in the Washington Post reads “Administration Would Face Strict Rules on Work During, After Government Service”

You’re harping on the word “former” and totally ignoring the word “during.” What does “during” mean to you except during? Does during actually mean “former” and I just don’t know it? I guess I’ll need to order Hooked on Phonics to improve my reading comprehension, or you’ll have to.

For further clarification about who is displaying a misunderstanding of the written word in a public forum, let us examine the relevant quote from the Washington Post in finer detail.

Declaring there is “more cleaning up to do in Washington,” he said he would ban political appointees in his administration from lobbying the executive branch after leaving their jobs. And anyone joining his administration would not be allowed to work on issues related to their former employers for at least two years.

Perhaps this a problem with how the Washington Post writer has phrased it or how Obama has phrased it himself, but what’s there in black and white for all to see says two distinct and separate things. As phrased, this is a two part proposal.

1). Appointees in his administration cannot lobby the administration after leaving their jobs.

2). Upon “joining” the administration, they cannot be involved in matters relating to former employers for two years.

Doesn’t say one word about their experience and employers BEFORE they come to the White house.

That’s right. It doesn’t say one word. It says two. That this pertains to activities upon “joining” and “during” their work for the administration as well as a total lobbying ban afterwards.

Incidentally, this is obviously a two part proposal if anyone is confused about it, and a ridiculous one at that.

Obama could refuse to allow his former subordinates to “lobby the administration” after they leave office (after all, he’d BE the administration as president and could just refuse to listen.) Notice, however, that he doesn’t say anything about lobbying Congress—which is where virtually all the lobbyists are. So he’s really promising nothing.

David,

Don’t bother, talking to LO is like talking to a wall. He believes Dubya walks on water and all others deserve scorn. Makes one wonder what it is that he is loyally opposing. Logic perhaps?

“1). Appointees in his administration cannot lobby the administration after leaving their jobs.

2). Upon “joining” the administration, they cannot be involved in matters relating to former employers for two years.

Doesn’t say one word about their experience and employers BEFORE they come to the White house.
That’s right. It doesn’t say one word. It says two. That this pertains to activities upon “joining” and “during” their work for the administration as well as a total lobbying ban afterwards.”

So, during and after now becomes before, right? Next, if I remember my Orwell correctly, comes “war is peace” and “2+2=whatever Big Brother says” Like I said, a brick wall.

L

Leatherankh, what are you talking about? What does Dubya have to do with this? Where’s the confusion? The words former, during, after, and before all have their place in understanding this issue.

The question is whether Obama appointees can work on issues related to FORMER employers (you know, those they worked for BEFORE) either DURING or AFTER their time in office (or neither).

David said about Obama’s plan: “Doesn’t say one word about their experience and employers BEFORE they come to the White house.”

But that is plainly false according to the Washington Post article. But don’t take my word for it (after all, I’m like “talking to a wall”).

Take it from Obama’s own mouth. To clarify what Obama’s plan is, I went straight to his official website.

This is a direct quote from his speech:

When you walk into my administration, you will not be able to work on regulations or contracts directly related to your former employer for two years.

How much clearer does it have to be? Can you or David continue to maintain with a straight face that “when you walk into my administration” actually means two after they leave office?

No fuss or apology necessary. A simple, “I was wrong and you were right” will suffice.

Gotta say it, LO is right on this one… Obama is a likeable guy, and in my top three for the major party candidates, but I do treat this ‘announcement’ with more than a little scepticism. Every candidate, repeat, EVERY candidate talks about cleaning up special interests… great. Bush talked about it… Clinton talked about it… so what’s new?

You are right Leatherankh, no point. Seems clear to the rest of us that Obama will prohibit his staff from lobbying for previous employers (i.e. speical interests) while allowing them to serve the American people and nation during their tenure in the Administration, and prohibit them from using that tenure to lobby for special interests at least 2 years after they leave the Administration.

An outstanding beginning on returning government and government service to focus on the people and the nation’s present and future, and let the special interests make their way in the marketplace without using tax payers to shore them up.

It dawned on me like a ton of bricks in 1979-80 when the government bailed out Chrysler from bankruptcy with 1.5 billion in loan guarantees, that this government was headed for serious fiscal mismanagement, if such practices were made commonplace. Now decades later, my fears have come to pass with a doubling of the national debt and subsidies to already enormously profitable industries in a span of just 10 years, 2001 to 2011.

The Irony is it was Democratic Presidents FDR, JFK, and Carter who undertook these kind of industry bailouts, until Reagan made government shoring up of corporations a Republican agenda going stronger today then ever before, and costing American taxpayers far more than ever in the past.

Doug, being skeptical of campaign promises is one of the healthiest voter acts I can think of besides casting ballots themselves. Trust without skepticism and holding the campaigner to account at re-election time is a big part of our problems today. I commend your skepticism. May it never leave your side, or mine.

David:

You have made my day!

I’m glad you are beginning to see what Obama is all about. This rule by itself does not mean very much. But when one realizes it is part of a grand philosophy of inclusion it is breathtaking.

You want to change the nature of politics. Obama wants the same thing. He is not apolitical or bi-partisan; he’s definitely a Democrat. But he considers everyone’s viewpoint before making a decision. And he respects everyone, even those who disagree with him.

LO:

As far as campaign money is concerned, Obama has promised that if he is chosen to be the nominee he would use public financing if his opponent would do the same.

Obama is not as pure as you think:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-na-obama22apr22,1,6990763.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage&ctrack=1&cset=true

Richard, can’t access that link without registering with the LA Times. Can you summarize?

David: It is also posted on Common Dreams, no registration needed.

Here: http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/04/22/681

Richard, well that is the Catch-22 of our current system, isn’t it? One cannot get elected to champion lobbyist and campaign finance reform without sufficient money from those with the money to give, to compete for the office. And those with the big bucks to give are tied to lobbyist interests.

Still, if its a choice between a candidate who doesn’t make a solemn vow to reform and one who does, both of whom use wealthy special interest money to get elected, the choice seems clear. The trick is to NOT to reelect them if they don’t uphold their original election vows, as in vote out incumbents who suckle from the current corrupt system for tenure.

Oh, and Richard, thank you very much for the alternate link. That is a useful article of interest. I appreciate it.

No problem David, my overarching point is that Obama gets credit for doing something which Kucinich is gonna do, and much better, just because Obama is a frontrunner.

Richard, absolutely right about Kucinich. I can’t help but, think it is so very average appearance and small physical stature next to his wife, that contributes to his campaign not acquiring more traction. What is euphemistically called the “electability” factor.

It is a fascinating study, physical appearance and its impact on the workings of our society, economy, politics, and government. George Washington likely would never have made the history books were it not for his imposing stature.

To think that America’s future has often hinged upon a person’s good symmetrical looks, or absence thereof, is a bit frightening when one looks deeply into the topic. We are probably the most vain modern culture on the face of the earth. And it shows, in so very, very many ways.

David R Remer said: “Richard, absolutely right about Kucinich”

So David you admit your whole article is a bunch of bull. Because while the article makes Obama look so damn good you “accidently” forget to acknowledge how pure Kucinich is. Just how the mainstream media pumps up Obama and Hilary and never mentions anything about Kucinich. Kucinich should be the Green Party candidate, although this will never happen (and I mean never ever ever ever ever ever happen), Kucinich is the only mainstream candidate who can actually qualify as progressive. The rest are fakes.
Of course I am waiting for Nader, as Kucinich won’t get the Dem nomination and has no chance in hell of getting the Green nomination (unfortunately) and is unlikely to run as an independent.

LO,

First, yes, I was wrong. The way the quote was worded, and without context, it sounded like they were refering to AFTER leaving the administration, not before. I didn’t get a chance to follow the links until now. Screaming toddlers tend to limit one’s internet time :-) But that doesn’t change the fact that you are deliberately misinterpreting his plan so that you can have something to mock. A two year wait does not mean unqualified candidates.

Second, my referal to your opinions on Dubya had more to do with some previous posts of yours on other threads. From what I’ve seen of you, you do indeed have a high opinion of our pres, which I cannot fathom.

David and Richard

Ah well, we all wish that Kucinich was more electable (didn’t Dukakis back in 92 have a similar stature issue? I remember a lot of jokes about them having to raise the podium he used at the DNC). But we all have to admit Obama is better than Hillary. All she will do is galvanize the Right to come out in droves.

L

leatherrankh: Yeah clearly Obama is better than Hilary, I agree on that. I plan on voting independent, but out of the frontrunners, and we know it will be a frontrunner to get the nomination, I would personally rather see Edwards get the nomination over Obama.

“Leatherankh, what are you talking about? What does Dubya have to do with this? Where’s the confusion?”
Posted by: Loyal Opposition at June 23, 2007 11:27 AM

LO,

Get used to the liberal code line, man! If libs can accuse you of being a blind follower of Dubya, your opinions don’t count. Seems to be their way of silencing any opposition these days! But, I think it may be in violation of the “comment on the message, not the messenger” rule of Watchblog!

JD

Folks I’m sorry but I’ve read thesse blogs for weeks now and all I see is a bunch of people arguing, and doing Nothing! If Obama or any one else was a Real Leader they could persuade Nancy Pelosi to start Impeachment Hearings. They can’t even get her to table the matter and that’s in her own words. “Impeachment is not on the table.”
Wake up people, we’ve been flim flamed. Both parties are Cowards and Liars