answer to Campaign Finance Reform (Obama is NOT the same as every other politician)

noodles_jefferson

I saw a thread that suggests that Obama will be the same liar as every other politician. I think it's important to note that most people agree that a serious issue that needs to be tackled is campaign Finance reform. McCain talks a big game about being as reformer, but he has an army of lobbyists working for him and he has taken plenty of "ear mark" money over the years. Obama has taken money from lobbyists in the past but has decided not to in this election because he want to get some real reform done asd doesn't want to go into office owing favors to big oil and pharmaceuticals, among others.

In this electionBarack Obama has not taken one dime of lobbyist or pac money. that means when he's in office he doesn't go in owing a bunch of favors to special interests. This cannot be understated. He is showign that it can be done. This is real campaign finance reform and he's not waiting for congress to eventually tackle that issue, he's doing it himself right now. And now the DNC has also declared that they will no longer take special interest money. the guy is a true leader. Is he perfect? No, nobody is, but he is clearly the better option between him and grandpa McSame, who thinks we can stay at war forever but opposed a GI bill that would have given our soldiers money for college and for career retraining for those soldier's whos jobs have been shipped overseas to cheaper labor markets. what a guy! Let's keep givign huge tax breaks to the rich and big oil whie we keep bankrupting our economy with endless war. Ugghh!!

Thecure

noodles_jefferson wrote:

I saw a thread that suggests that Obama will be the same liar as every other politician. I think it's important to note that most people agree that a serious issue that needs to be tackled is campaign Finance reform. McCain talks a big game about being as reformer, but he has an army of lobbyists working for him and he has taken plenty of "ear mark" money over the years. Obama has taken money from lobbyists in the past but has decided not to in this election because he want to get some real reform done asd doesn't want to go into office owing favors to big oil and pharmaceuticals, among others.

In this electionBarack Obama has not taken one dime of lobbyist or pac money. that means when he's in office he doesn't go in owing a bunch of favors to special interests. This cannot be understated. He is showign that it can be done. This is real campaign finance reform and he's not waiting for congress to eventually tackle that issue, he's doing it himself right now. And now the DNC has also declared that they will no longer take special interest money. the guy is a true leader. Is he perfect? No, nobody is, but he is clearly the better option between him and grandpa McSame, who thinks we can stay at war forever but opposed a GI bill that would have given our soldiers money for college and for career retraining for those soldier's whos jobs have been shipped overseas to cheaper labor markets. what a guy! Let's keep givign huge tax breaks to the rich and big oil whie we keep bankrupting our economy with endless war. Ugghh!!

any proof to this or just what you think?

jeffbr

noodles_jefferson wrote:

I saw a thread that suggests that Obama will be the same liar as every other politician.

Your sig is funny, probably not intentional. It looks like you've got Barak saying "Yes we can" to giving up essential liberty which is what congress and the administration did with the Patriot Act. Remind me again how fiercely Barak fought against giving up liberties.

noodles_jefferson

jeffbr wrote:

Your sig is funny, probably not intentional. It looks like you've got Barak saying "Yes we can" to giving up essential liberty which is what congress and the administration did with the Patriot Act. Remind me again how fiercely Barak fought against giving up liberties.

First, as a point of clarity, Barack Obama was not a member of the United States Senate in 2001, and did not vote on the original PATRIOT Act. Senators Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, however, both voted in favor of it.

Second, Obama joined a filibuster that blocked a reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act, which would have made permanent 14 of the 16 original PATRIOT Act provisions.



Obama supported a separate act (the SAFE Act) that would have contained broader checks and balances than the original PATRIOT Act.

He also said the following when he ultimately supported a compromise act (the one Clinton is now criticizing him for supporting):

"Let me be clear: this compromise is not as good as the Senate version of the bill, nor is it as good as the SAFE Act that I have cosponsored. I suspect the vast majority of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle feel the same way. But, it's still better than what the House originally proposed.

This compromise does modestly improve the PATRIOT Act by strengthening civil liberties protections without sacrificing the tools that law enforcement needs to keep us safe. In this compromise:

*We strengthened judicial review of both National Security Letters, the administrative subpoenas used by the FBI, and Section 215 orders, which can be used to obtain medical, financial and other personal records.

*We established hard time limits on sneak-and-peak searches and limits on roving wiretaps.

*We protected most libraries from being subject to National Security Letters.

*We preserved an individual's right to seek counsel and hire an attorney without fearing the FBI's wrath.

*And we allowed judicial review of the gag orders that accompany Section 215 searches.

The compromise is far from perfect. I would have liked to see stronger judicial review of National Security Letters and shorter time limits on sneak and peak searches, among other things."

noodles_jefferson

Thecure wrote:

any proof to this or just what you think?

it's an easily verifiable fact.

jeffbr

noodles_jefferson wrote:

He also said the following when he ultimately supported a compromise act (the one Clinton is now criticizing him for supporting):

Right. I'm aware that after saying he wouldn't vote to renew the Patriot Act, he did renew an act that he admitted was only modestly improved. So instead of fiercely fighting for our liberties, he compromised and made it a little more difficult for our government to continue to carve away at our freedoms. I guess that's something to hold as an achievement.

noodles_jefferson

jeffbr wrote:

Right. I'm aware that after saying he wouldn't vote to renew the Patriot Act, he did renew an act that he admitted was only modestly improved. So instead of fiercely fighting for our liberties, he compromised and made it a little more difficult for our government to continue to carve away at our freedoms. I guess that's something to hold as an achievement.

I never said he was perfect, but he's our best option. Kucinich is probbly nmore up your alley, and he would be great, but you see that corporate media didn't even give the guy a shot, marginalizing him and shutting him out of debates. either way, a Mccain presidency would be a disaster. Obama may not be as progressive as some but he does have a shot at getting elected, which Kucinich would not, and would be a step in the right direction.

noodles_jefferson

you can look at any politician and find something you don't like.

meme

I am immensely curious about how he will deal with moveon, in this sense. It is very tricky. On one hand, it is supposedly a grassroot political organization, on the other it is a PAC like all the others, in fact with a not-too-democratic decisional structure.

noodles_jefferson wrote:

I saw a thread that suggests that Obama will be the same liar as every other politician. I think it's important to note that most people agree that a serious issue that needs to be tackled is campaign Finance reform. McCain talks a big game about being as reformer, but he has an army of lobbyists working for him and he has taken plenty of "ear mark" money over the years. Obama has taken money from lobbyists in the past but has decided not to in this election because he want to get some real reform done asd doesn't want to go into office owing favors to big oil and pharmaceuticals, among others.

In this electionBarack Obama has not taken one dime of lobbyist or pac money. that means when he's in office he doesn't go in owing a bunch of favors to special interests. This cannot be understated. He is showign that it can be done. This is real campaign finance reform and he's not waiting for congress to eventually tackle that issue, he's doing it himself right now. And now the DNC has also declared that they will no longer take special interest money. the guy is a true leader. Is he perfect? No, nobody is, but he is clearly the better option between him and grandpa McSame, who thinks we can stay at war forever but opposed a GI bill that would have given our soldiers money for college and for career retraining for those soldier's whos jobs have been shipped overseas to cheaper labor markets. what a guy! Let's keep givign huge tax breaks to the rich and big oil whie we keep bankrupting our economy with endless war. Ugghh!!

blackredyellow

meme wrote:

I am immensely curious about how he will deal with moveon, in this sense. It is very tricky. On one hand, it is supposedly a grassroot political organization, on the other it is a PAC like all the others, in fact with a not-too-democratic decisional structure.

That is interesting to me, from both sides. McCain has said that he doesn't like the 527s as well... McCain and Obama both say they want a "clean" campaign, will they try to silence the 527s on each of their sides?

Pacomc79

no reform will happen because each major party is afraid of the other not going along with it and they are most worried about maintaining power once they grab it.

...and the money is good. Find me a poor politician... in congress. Dosen't exist. Even if they weren't wealthy when they come in they'll be wealthy when they come out.

Thecure

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/11/26/obamas-pac-giving-money-_n_74117.html

i don't know what to say abotu this. he is being nice to people or is he buying votes. i don't know.

noodles_jefferson

Thecure wrote:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/11/26/obamas-pac-giving-money-_n_74117.html

i don't know what to say abotu this. he is being nice to people or is he buying votes. i don't know.

it's normal to give money to other politicians in your party who are campaiging for or tryign to maintain congressional seats. Hopefully he's not going agaisnt his word and continuing to take pac money. He has in the past but has said that he won't in this election. but you want to help other dems win congressional seats if they are to get a working majority (60%) if they ever want to get anythnig done. The republicans have already stated that they will try to block anythign the democratic controlled congress tries to pass, and then run in 08 on the platform of a "do-nothing Congress". That is pathetic. blocking legislation for purely political reasons. The dems need higher than the 51% majority to get anything passed.

meme

blackredyellow wrote:

That is interesting to me, from both sides. McCain has said that he doesn't like the 527s as well... McCain and Obama both say they want a "clean" campaign, will they try to silence the 527s on each of their sides?

I don't think they would necessarily "silence" them, but they would definitely keep some distance. And by the way, I think you would do Obama a favor in supporting his campaign rather than MoveOn.

Thecure

noodles_jefferson wrote:

it's normal to give money to other politicians in your party who are campaiging for or tryign to maintain congressional seats. Hopefully he's not going agaisnt his word and continuing to take pac money. He has in the past but has said that he won't in this election. but you want to help other dems win congressional seats if they are to get a working majority (60%) if they ever want to get anythnig done. The republicans have already stated that they will try to block anythign the democratic controlled congress tries to pass, and then run in 08 on the platform of a "do-nothing Congress". That is pathetic. blocking legislation for purely political reasons. The dems need higher than the 51% majority to get anything passed.

i agree with almost everything you have stated but teh questions i had abotu teh article is that it seemed that Obama gav ethe money to another politician and right after the person gave their vote to him. it might just have happen like that but who knows.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

noodles_jefferson wrote:

you can look at any politician and find something you don't like.

I can also look at a pile of excrement, and find several things that are beneficial. It doesn't mean I should immediately gulp it down without scrutiny.

It all goes far above what politicians say and want to do. They ultimately obey the ones above them instead of below them.

cornnifer

jeffbr wrote:

Right. I'm aware that after saying he wouldn't vote to renew the Patriot Act, he did renew an act that he admitted was only modestly improved. So instead of fiercely fighting for our liberties, he compromised and made it a little more difficult for our government to continue to carve away at our freedoms. I guess that's something to hold as an achievement.

Provided the way our government and lawmaking bodies work, it is oftentimes necessary to take small steps. A modestly improved patriot act is better than a permanent patriot act in its original form. I'll take a series of moderate compromises on a path to reform. Obama cannot be faulted for doing the same. A refusal to compromise will oftentimes leave you with nothing. What good is that?

jeffbr

cornnifer wrote:

Provided the way our government and lawmaking bodies work, it is oftentimes necessary to take small steps. A modestly improved patriot act is better than a permanent patriot act in its original form. I'll take a series of moderate compromises on a path to reform. Obama cannot be faulted for doing the same. A refusal to compromise will oftentimes leave you with nothing. What good is that?

Well, sure. There's compromise, and there's compromise. I guess how much you compromise on an issue reflects how deeply you care about said issue. Renewing the patriot act and continuing to fund the war doesn't seem to be compromising as much as caving. What if he hadn't compromised? The same bill would have likely passed without his support (since the compromise bill wasn't really dependent on him solely), and he'd be able to have the moral authority to condemn the Patriot Act and the war. Instead he gets to complain about them, while being complicit in their continuance.

Abookamongstthemany

jeffbr wrote:

Well, sure. There's compromise, and there's compromise. I guess how much you compromise on an issue reflects how deeply you care about said issue. Renewing the patriot act and continuing to fund the war doesn't seem to be compromising as much as caving. What if he hadn't compromised? The same bill would have likely passed without his support (since the compromise bill wasn't really dependent on him solely), and he'd be able to have the moral authority to condemn the Patriot Act and the war. Instead he gets to complain about them, while being complicit in their continuance.

Couldn't agree more.

Just how much we choose to compromise as a society directly shapes just how much progress will we see.