Presidential Election Process Flaw Illustrated

Here live and in color, (when I watched Newshour this evening) we find beautifully performed and clearly illustrated, the problem with the current presidential election process in America. There are only 2 parties acknowledged, and they make up their own rules about who gets the nomination and how, not the American people. Corporations and special interest groups are free to contribute and bring power to bear on decisions that are made for the country. As indicated below, the Democratic Party rules say that the delegates make the decision, and some 'Super' delegates even get more than the average leverage with their vote. Most Americans, if you ask them, confuse their rights to vote and peoples rights to run for president with democratic or republican party rules. These two parties can make up any rules they want regarding their candidates and their procedures and they do. These rules, as indicated below, do not ensure the ingrained American 'One person One vote', or 'Every Vote Counts'. It does ensure that numbers are crunched and manipulated until the favored candidate comes out on top no matter the actual number of American votes obtained. Does that sound right to you?

If you are a member of one of the parties, write, call or email to let them know you want actual member votes counted. Take the time to listen to some of the third party and independent candidates and their issues, if they are your issues give them some support! Most of all learn your rights. Learn that the D and R parties are not the only game in town, their candidates don't have to be your candidates, at the very least take the time to make the changes within your party to ensure your vote and every single vote is actually counted, and every single candidate has a chance to be seen, heard and on the ballot.

"REP. DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ: No, the race isn't remotely over. And with all due respect to Governor Romer, the key indicator that is the clear indication of Senator Clinton being the best candidate for the general election is that she is now, as of last night, ahead in the popular vote, when you count Florida and Michigan, which we absolutely need to make sure that we do, because the Democratic nominee should be selected by voters in all 50 states.
And at the end of the day, when we look through the Electoral College map, the way we add up to the 270 Electoral College votes that we need is by winning the states that are swing states and by getting ahead in the popular vote. And that's how we get electoral votes.
At the end of the day, Hillary Clinton is ahead in the popular vote. More people have gone to the polls in America -- more Democrats have gone to the polls in America to cast votes for Hillary Clinton than for Senator Obama. And that is the measure that we should be using to decide who is our best foot forward in November.

GWEN IFILL: Governor Romer smiled when you said that.

ROY ROMER: It isn't the measure that we've all agreed on in the Democratic Party. The measure we've agreed on is, who has the most delegates?
And we ought not mislead the country. This is a contest that has rules, and the rules are, who has the most delegates? And those delegates have spoken." PBS

PolitiFact | A service of the Obama Campaign

A few weeks ago I added the Politifact gadgety thingy to my homepage, as I had come across an interesting article and took a few moments to look over a few of their headlines and thought it might be interesting. And in fact they are interesting, the site itself is well laid out, newsy and not extravagant. I've bookmarked a few of their articles, referred to them for info etc. It began to occur to me recently however, that the frequency of the name Obama over Clinton in the 6-7 headlines that come across the little reader was, well, getting more frequent. Over the next few days I kept my eye on those headlines and also began to notice they were leaning a bit to the Obama not Clinton. Questions and controversies from the headlines sure, but picked and parceled so the Clinton questions whether they turn out to be true or half or pants on fire, always seem to end up with Clinton looking bad, and Obama but not Clinton looking put out and wronged. Today I clicked on a headline from the RSS feed, Focus on the Facts I think, another article letting us know someone had maligned Obama, not Mrs Clinton. So I decided to head to their front page to see what that was like.

Obama word count 20
Clinton word count 9

Obama Pictures 7
Clinton Pictures 3

Rezko - 0

Needless to say, I am deleting the gadgety thingy as I don't need this sort of "Truth".


April 26, 2008 Update:

A couple of links to similar stories:

MediaMatters March 08 Why Politifact Really Emerged

Nader Mckinney Gravel Paul Nader Mckinney Gravel Paul Nader Mckinney Gravel Paul

EPA Missing in Action - and FEC and FHA and ...

By Margaret Kriz The National Journal
Monday 14 April 2008
"The Environmental Protection Agency is failing to live up to its name these days, its legions of critics agree. At a time when the nation's top environmental regulators face increasingly complex pollution problems, President Bush is pushing for dramatic cuts in EPA's budget, his administration's strained, pro-industry interpretations of environmental laws have repeatedly been laughed out of court, and the White House is widely perceived to be running roughshod over agency scientists and lawyers.

Environmental experts charge that the agency's vanishing act is undercutting environmental statutes and delaying much-needed new efforts to clean up the nation's air, water, and land as well as aggressively tackle global warming. "There has been a steady drumbeat of actions that this administration has taken to weaken clean-air protections in this country," says S. William Becker, executive director of the National Association of Clean Air Agencies, which represents state and local pollution control officials. "Their actions have had very serious and substantial adverse impacts on our ability to provide health protection in this country." "


Democrats Sue FEC over Mccain Finances

by Peter Overby
Morning Edition, April 15, 2008 · "The Democratic National Committee has sued the Federal Election Commission, saying the commission failed in its obligation to investigate Republican John McCain's campaign finances. It's another consequence of the FEC's being nonfunctional in the midst of the biggest fundraising season in history — unable to act because it lacks the necessary number of commissioners. "

"Here's the legal part of the case: Democrats say McCain has violated campaign finance law and that he's getting away with it because the enforcement agency, the FEC, has not been able to function. The panel needs four commissioners to make decisions, but it only has two, thanks to a standoff between Senate Democrats and the White House over confirmation of three nominees. "

"Meanwhile, as if to emphasize the plight of the FEC, former chairman Robert Lenhard has asked that the White House withdraw his name from nomination to one of those empty seats on the commission. While he was waiting to be confirmed, he was hired by one of Washington's top law firms. "

"FEC watchers say that if the stalemate isn't broken before the Senate's July recess, the commission will be out of business for the rest of this election year. "


What do these scenarios have in common? 8 years of republican leadership. Less government, let the 'free market' take care of things. Well, there you go. Take away the money for government agencies and things will go downhill, FAST. We all complain about paying taxes, but we aren't really against taxes and the things they provide, we are just against all of the waste, overspending and abuse. We all like the sewer and water systems, decent roads to drive our cars on, police to show up when something goes wrong, firemen when things catch on fire and yes, election commissions to keep us informed and candidates honest, environmental protection agencies to ensure our home is safe and thriving for us and our children, a housing agency to keep home ownership, one of the best investments for people and communities a fair and accessible thing for everyone. How is it that we find ourselves railing against taxes, and then when the taxes go down we rail that our government agencies aren't working? The facts are that if we didn't all pay for these services, the cost for them would be MUCH higher. Don't fool yourself into thinking you won't still need these services because you will, but now the cost will be on you alone. YOU hire an attorney before every transaction to secure your interests, YOU hire a security guard for your home, YOU install and maintain fire fighting equipment on your property and hire someone to stand around in case a fire breaks out. You hire teachers for your children, be sure to buy a good solid off road vehicle as the roads will likely go to hell pretty quickly. I wonder how much satellite access will jump to for your cell phone use...getting the picture? So if you are feeling that 'big government' shouldn't be getting in your way, there are 2 things that could be happening. A) You are not participating in your government. You are not studying the issues, talking with people, attending meetings, supporting candidates that speak for you, voting for candidates that speak for you, running for local office so your voice is heard. If you find yourself saying "who has time for that?" then you need to quit complaining, you have placed other things higher on the list. By this I mean that if you are paying for a 3000sf house for 3 people, have 2-3 cars and a garage for each, a summer home, several $200 purses or a $3000 suit, or maybe you have full home phone service and full cell phone service and full satellite service and high speed internet service.... and you go to work early, stay late, you both work....well then you have chosen to have those things over making your voice heard in the community. It only takes a couple hours a day to keep yourself informed, to write letters to your officials, to attend meetings. B) You have something to hide. Since WE (Americans) make up our government, vote on our laws and regulations and our leaders to represent us, if you are concerned about one of US going over your business practices then that raises a red flag for me. If our rules are in place to make people safe, to safeguard our economy, our rights, our ideals and our soil and if there is something that you are doing that might jeopardize any of those things, then YOU are the reason our laws are in place and you should reconsider your plans. The idea is not to proceed until you get caught, and try to change the rules that might tangle you up along the way.

What we need and what I think we all want is a massive "SURGE" of audits and revamps, putting new technology into play, to overhaul the systems and programs we have in place to make them more efficient. Make a final accounting and restructure that will retain all of the excellent work we have done so far in building a network of support for our public that allows all of us to benefit from safety and security in our homes, schools and places of business - that allows us to eat foods from all over without fear of harm - all of the things we have set in motion over the last 200 years, much of which none of us would be able to supply for ourselves alone. With our dollars used more efficiently, and more people put to work in these endeavors, tax increases would slow yet services would remain and quality of life for everyone gets better.

Nader behind in fund-raising - 2008 Presidential Campaign Blog - Political Intelligence - Boston.com

"The nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics reported this afternoon that he had raised $321,700 by the end of February, including $40,200 from his own pocket and a quarter of his total take from California residents."

Seems like prudent planning to me as, the real fight isn't likely to get under way for a few months. It also is a useful statement that speaks to the OUTRAGEOUS amounts of money being spent by the R & D parties at a time when we are all looking to tighten our belts if not being forced to do so. One shouldn't need to spend that kind of money to be a part of the process. Speaking of that, one certainly shouldn't be required to prove voter support based on dollars raised. The fact that the word democracy has become somehow interchangeable with capitalism is perverse. How is it that people who can't afford to send money to a campaign no longer have the right to support a candidate and have it count? (speaking of minimum donations per state to qualify for matching funds)


I went here for information on public funding of presidential elections, this is where the disappointment began. First is the fact that the only instances in which the word 'Independent' is used is when referring to expenditures not candidates. Each section stated time and again 'party candidate', 'major party candidates' as well a 'minor' and 'new' party candidates. No where is there a section for or direct information on 'Independent Candidates'. One small section titled 'Eligibility for Public Funds' finds itself parked fully halfway down this page titled 'Public Funding of Presidential Elections Brochure', carefully placed after 7 other sections that only refer to parties, committees and conventions. No where on this official government site for information does it make clear the standards and requirements for independent candidates. It does note that this page is intended for students, public information and reporters not candidates or committees, and that those groups should consult chapter 11 campaign laws. (no handy link provided)
This same government provided site finds a page titled 'Chapter 1: Primary Matching Funds' that notes "18. The requirement that candidates be affiliated with a political party has raised constitutional questions. Some have argued that it discriminates against independent candidates. For a discussion of this issue, see Chapter 2." Again, this is the only remark on independent candidates.

This 'Chapter 2' finds that "eligible candidates" are, by definition, the nominees "of a political party for President and Vice President."11 and that '11' is noted as 26 U.S.C. Sec.9002(4). It goes on:

Thus, on its face, the statute would appear to preclude public funding for independent candidates. On the other hand, Title 26 does not define the term "political party." Consequently, the Commission has relied on the definition found at 2 U.S.C. Sec.431(16): a political party is "an association, committee, or organization which nominates a candidate for election to any Federal office whose name appears on the election ballot as the candidate of such association, committee, or organization."
Applying this definition in Advisory Opinion (AO) 1980-3, the Commission determined that the Citizens Party would qualify as a political party once it received verification from any state that a candidate would appear on the ballot as a nominee of the party. Subsequently, in AO 1980-56, the Commission concluded that Barry Commoner, the Citizens Party's Presidential nominee, could qualify for post-election funding as a new party candidate even if he was not listed as the party's nominee on some states' ballots. The Commission noted that Mr. Commoner was registered with the FEC as a candidate of the Citizens Party, and that the statute required only that the candidate (not the party) receive five percent of the vote to qualify for public funds. Similarly, in AO 1980-96, the Commission confirmed that the various organizations sponsoring John Anderson's candidacy would qualify as political parties for purposes of the public funding rules. Therefore, Mr. Anderson, as the nominee of these parties, could qualify for post-general election funding if he received more than five percent of the vote.12
Although the Anderson opinion did not address the issue, some Commissioners felt that he should have been declared eligible for funding as an independent candidate. Commissioners John Warren McGarry and Frank P. Reiche filed separate statements supporting such a finding. Mr. Reiche argued that the Anderson campaign was "dedicated to the election of an independent candidate" and should not have been required to "cloak [itself] with the appearance of political party formality" to qualify for public funding. Both Commissioners cited legislative history and the U.S. Circuit Court's opinion in Buckley v. Valeo to support their case. The Circuit Court stated that independent candidates should be subject to the same eligibility requirements as other candidates:
If these provisions would in fact operate to prevent independents from obtaining public funding, no matter what their showing, or if they would require that independents go to the trouble of creating election party machinery in order to obtain public funding, then they would raise serious constitutional questions. . . . But the statute does not command that interpretation.13

In 1981, the Commission formally asked Congress to consider clarifying whether an independent candidate could qualify for general election funding.14 In trying to find the verdict, opinion or decision I did find more questions :

3. In Buckley v. Valeo, the circuit court opinion suggested that failure to fund independent candidates could raise constitutional questions. 519 F.2d 821, 887 (D.C. Cir. 1975). The Supreme Court, in its subsequent decision, did not explicitly rule on this issue.
4. Title 26 does not define the term "political party." Consequently, the Commission has relied on the definition found at 2 U.S.C. Sec.431(16).


Lets see if I can find more... Should it BE his hard????

The above article refers to "(The Commission's 1993 legislative recommendations are included in this report as Appendix 2.)" as a "more complete discussion", no where on that page does the word independent appear. On the public info page it was noted that they fall back to the definition of candidate found in 26 U..SC Sec.9002(4) please note this is different than the definition cite noted just above as 4.

H.R. 2817 in it's current incarnation's summary in part says "6/21/2007--Introduced.
Let the People Decide Clean Campaign Act - Amends the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (FECA) to set forth specified expenditure limitations for House of Representatives general elections.
Permits additional expenditures by eligible major party, third party, and independent candidates."

Here are the details pertaining to independent candidates from the bill detail page:

`(2) ELIGIBLE CANDIDATE DESCRIBED-
`(A) IN GENERAL- In this section, an `eligible candidate' is a major party, third party, or independent candidate in a House of Representatives general election who presents to the Commission petitions containing the signatures of individuals eligible to vote in the election (as verified by the Commission), except that the highest funded candidate in the election may not be an eligible candidate for purposes of this section.

But this page really only refers to 'house of representatives general election' and only eludes to presidential elections when discussing numbers of backers compared to previous elections excluding presidential elections. This bill is still active, but I am not sure if it is pertinent to my search.

I've been working on this for hours now, with no real results. I'm going to give it a break now... if anyone can end my misery and send me a link to pertinent information regarding the current congressionally acceptable definition of "Independent Candidate" as it pertains to public campaign funding well....I'll visit your site three times a day until the elections are over.

What Independent Voters Want

• We’re tired of two parties whose priority is acquiring and maintaining power rather than serving the people who voted them into office.
  
• We have no problem voting for someone who has no chance of winning.
  
• We vote for the person and not the party.
  
• We seldom vote a straight, major-party ticket.
  
• We are not undecided. We have decided to be independent.
  
• We believe that a diversity of opinions stimulates healthy debate.
  
• We want dialogue, not diatribes.
  
• We want a government that follows the will of the people instead of one that manipulates it.
  
• We care as much about what happens on every other day as on Election Day.
  
• We want Ralph Nader to keep on running, even if we don’t vote for him. We probably need to apologize for that.
  
• We are anti-party, and yet we welcome third-party voters and candidates to join us under the independent umbrella, because they’re also outsiders.
  
• We believe the United States is better than this.

A pretty big whopper on it's own:

mw Says: "While people may actually like to think of themselves as “Independent”, what they do in a voting booth is one hell of a lot more important than what they tell pollsters about how how they label themselves."

When the parties take the measures they have to keep people off the ballot, leaving no other names there but their own we have little choice as to what we do in the voting booth save not voting at all. Looking at the falling numbers of voters, I'd say they have made one hell of a loud statement!

Another:

mw Says: "The way to read this, is that when an “independent” tells a pollster which way they “lean”, they are actually saying “this is how I vote”. "

What part of the writers statement didn't you understand? "nor are we “party-leaning.” The polls you are referring to do not have real questions and a real category for people who are not of one party or the other, in order to give indication of our issues we answer in the manner which will get our points across. It is the pollsters and people like you that push us into a lean, that force us into your mold of leaners.

So here is OUR definition, every person on your census that hasn't registered yet to vote, every person who has registered and hasn't recently voted, every person who recently removed themselves from the R or the D party and every single person who votes on issues not party affiliation, THOSE people are your Independents. That is how many, exactly, you need to consider Independent Voters.

Mccain Closer to Bush than Democrats

"On the other hand, McCain has failed to release any clear global warming policy, and his economic and health care plans are designed for the benefit of millionaires and giant corporations at the expense of everyone else. However, McCain's people have made it clear he does have one bedrock principle when it comes to global warming policy: 'He wants to see the use of nukes.'"

Super Delegates Look Down, Look Up for Assistance

"With neither candidate in a position to win enough pledged delegates to garner the nomination or enough popular votes to claim a clear mandate, the elected leaders and other party officials who make up the superdelegate corps are increasingly looking farther up the party hierarchy for decisive action."


And there it is, the simple problem in the equation. Looking 'up' in this situation is not the answer, looking 'Down' is. Down the ladder to the People you represent, Down deep inside your American self.


Here's another one:

"Until the elders, until the leadership and until the American people across all levels speak in some definitive way about a process to both be decisive and protective of these two groups, everyone's holding their breath, and it's very unsettling and difficult for the party to have this split and it only gets more so the more time goes on," the aide said. "They are hoping for a process that will either allow the voters to decide or to 'allow the voters to feel like they have decided' after the superdelegate process is born out - if it has to come to that."

Nope, no one wants to simply "feel like they decided" and no one wants you to hope for it much less settle for it!

Of the People By the People and For the People

Today I'm listening to Sen. Jon Kyl debate in the Senate over the budget. He mentions that the government should be working for us, not against us. I would like to remind the Senator that 'Our' government, while it has taken a turn for the worse due to corporate manipulation, is still 'Our' government. Of By and For the people. Shame on him for trying to deepen the illusion that it's "Us against Them". There is no dictator standing at the helm here, there is no brutish force that will arrive at my door for tendering this admonishment.
You offer this statement in your argument regarding what you call "paying for tax cuts". You say that it does no service to Americans to cut a tax here and raise another there to 'pay for it'. I am glad that you that you have been able to hold on to this one ideal that all Americans are created equal but perhaps I should remind you that not all Americans have remained equal. You and I both know that the tax cut "Here" will be from middle and lower income 'Americans', just as well as we both know that the taxes raised "There" will be from upper-middle and high income 'Americans'.
In your picked and parceled ideal world, everyone would keep their own money and let the blocks fall where they may, is that it? I'm sure it sounds good from up there, in Short Sightedville. You and your friends have the money to send your children to private schools, hire private security for your homes and the very best doctors. You can build tall sturdy walls around your village to help protect yourselves...thinking maybe you have seen this movie before?
The thing of it is the rest of us, the majority of us, still hold on to that one first Ideal. Of By and For. We want everyone to chip in to secure our neighborhoods, to inspect our food supply, to protect children and the elderly. Everyone benefits from educated citizens, stop sending jobs overseas and chip in to educate us! Everyone suffers when poor education leads to low employment that leads to low personal morale that leads to crimes of desperation and frustration, chip in for parenting education, counseling and school-to-work programs. Corporations don't make money without People. If people are afraid, unprepared and sick, if roads are unsafe and mothers worry about food and toys that may kill their children they are not going to pay for the goods and services that keep your corporation in business. I could go on, but you must get the point by now. Our government IS us, we don't like ourselves very much right now but we are working on it. Our government has the best plan to date that realizes and works WITH the fact that this remains a dog eat dog world, it allows for the will of the many to outweigh the will of the few without oppression and violence, where any person can speak their mind and hope to convince others.
Sir, you are a United States Senator speaking from the floor of the US Senate building, you ARE government. If you see a division between the government and the people then You sir, and others like you, are the divisive factor. If every one of you leading OUR government would take the blinders off and act each and every time in the interest of the people, remember that you in fact ARE the people instead of acting in your own personal interest, things just might go a little more smoothly. Stop creating the divisiveness you rail against.
The money Of the People spent justly By the People For the People's benefit.

Nader means Change - For Real

Nader will run for president

Feb 24: Ralph Nader announces his third bid for the White House while speaking with NBC’s Tim Russert of “Meet the Press”.

Why Not? Hillary grew up as a Corporate attorney for WalMart of all places, WALMART! Yeah yeah, working for the poor's favorite store but look at what Walmart has done from a legal, or attorney's view point! If any corporation is going to be able to take advantage of her Walmart will be the one. Walmart has one of the worst records for a company it's size as far as it's employees are concerned, you know, The People. She is a corporate attorney.

Why Not? Barack grew up in Hawaii. So what you say? Lovely people with values. Yes, except Barack didn't spend much time with The People. He lived in a large expensive house and went to private schools. There is a huge wasteland of toxic goo under the Great Lakes causing low birth weights and excessive still births in the Chicago area...gosh I wonder why we haven't heard more about this? Personal gain trumps The People I guess.

Why Not? John tells us he is disgusted by the status quo in campaigning, lobbyists are bad he says. But only if he doesn't need a private jet ride somewhere I suppose. That makes him an ok guy, doesn't it? It was only PAX tv I guess, they are religious how can that be bad? Well, when the owner of Pax (before it was Pax quite yet, it was Paxon Communications then) was buying up all of the local stations (hey, isn't there an FCC rule about that?) he could get his hands on, he ran into a little trouble. He asked his friend John (in person, turns out despite John's denial http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/022308C.shtml ) to write a letter to the FCC on his behalf. Not only did John do this for him, he did it twice, the second to the employees as opposed to the head when his initial letter to him got no response. The head of the agency wrote back to John letting him know he had crossed the line and his letter was "highly unusual". A subsequent review by the FCC General Counsel's Office determined that McCain had violated the commission's ex parte rules. But here is the kicker, the part we should all be paying attention to: Five days after McCain's second letter, the FCC voted 3 to 2 to approve the deal. The commission also imposed a condition prohibiting Cornerstone from "proselytizing." Cornerstone would not agree to those terms, and the deal collapsed.

proselytize \PROS-uh-luh-tyz\, intransitive verb:

1. To induce someone to convert to one's religious faith.2. To induce someone to join one's institution, cause, or political party.

transitive verb: 1. To convert to some religion, system, opinion, or the like.

Proselytize is formed from proselyte, "a new convert, especially a convert to some religion or religious sect, or to some particular opinion, system, or party,"

from Greek proselutos, "a proselyte, a newcomer," from pros, "toward" + elutos, from eluthon, "I came."

If the word of the day is "CHANGE" there is no better way to describe what Nader can do for us!
Oh, you didn't really mean change? You meant to just lean a little, no REAL change is needed... You are ok with the way things are going? You have accepted that hillary barack and john are really different enough? Click on the Photo caption to listen to what Nader has to say.

Looking for change? Really?

Democracy not = to Capitalism

Democracy is not the same as Capitalism

Democracy
1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.
3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.
4. political or social equality; democratic spirit.
5. the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.
*Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary

1.Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2.A political or social unit that has such a government.
3.The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4.Majority rule.
5.The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.
[French démocratie, from Late Latin dēmocratia, from Greek dēmokratiā : dēmos, people; see dā- in Indo-European roots + -kratiā, -cracy.]
*The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition


Capitalism
cap·i·tal·ism /ˈkæpɪtlˌɪzəm/ Pronunciation[kap-i-tl-iz-uhm]
–noun an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

[Origin: 1850–55; capital1 + -ism]
*Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary


n. An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market.

*The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.


Yet we do seem to have merged the two into some abhorrent mutant. The point of democracy is to level the playing field, everyone has a voice. Today it seems, more than ever, only people with money have a voice. Many a public policy has been made based on the popularity of an issue or item and this information is based on dollars spent. Many people follow the the two major political party's lead simply because they believe that if they raise that kind of money, many people must agree with them, they can't all be wrong. In basis, this theory will hold a little water, but in fact it will sink in the end as just a few very wealthy people (relatively) contribute huge amounts of cash.

I have a bit of renewed hope with the onset of the internet, we have our voices back. But I am sure there were people just as revitalized by the printing press, the radio and the television. Those mediums did do a lot to bring information to the masses, from hometown to around the world and so did do a lot to raise our voices. The state of those mediums today, all in the hands of the wealthy few twisting, slanting and outright banning certain topics, well... lets just try to get as much from this new medium while it is in our hands.

Recently I went in search of online campaigns for the 2008 US presidential elections. What I found was dismal. The 2 major party's sites were of course flashy, and state of the art but were still really just giant commercials. Not very connected to the people they should have been addressing. The other parties, what I found of them online, were at the bottom of a very deep chasm if the D&R's were on the hill. The Green party's news feed hadn't been updated since dec7'07, spelling errors were noted by me and that's saying something! Ad promo's were dated 2006, including audio and video selections. Nothing from '07/'08 at all. It was hard to find the current candidates and the party seemed very unorganized. Their principals are something I find a lot of people are interested in but with the current mindset of "capimocracy", without the trappings the big money buys, people think there can't be many other people that agree with them, they must be wrong and so am I. In a discussion on the topic with a friend a few days ago, that was the answer he gave. "If people agreed they would put their money behind it".

My folks are on a fixed income, they did a little saving and are pretty well off in retirement however their idea of a donation to the party is about $25. My sister works in health care and has children/grandchildren, though she was recently able to become a homeowner in lieu of a renter she doesn't have it in her budget to make more than a $10-$20 donation. I have another sister who is recently divorced after 15 years and while she was able to head back to school and start a new career she is back in a renting situation and also couldn't afford to donate much more than $50-$100. My friend has 4 children, last year she was in a position to start a business and build for her family's future. She took a huge chance and did a great job, until flooding closed her down for 2 months. One week or maybe even two closed would have been hard but recoverable, 2 months were not. She lost her business and in course her home. She is now an hourly employee and a renter. She cannot afford to donate anything to a political party. Another friend attends a church for recovering addicts. Most have just come from stints in rehab, or are children of addicted parents. Most are unemployed all are renters, mostly of a room in someone else's home. My next door neighbor was injured on the job. He was unable to return to work. He applied for various programs to assist him in keeping a roof over his families head and food in their stomachs. Unemployment runs out, L&I disputes and meetings and hearings go on forever. He lives with his parents now. He cannot afford to donate to a political party this year.

These are the good stories. There are plenty of people who never were as lucky as these, and won't be in the future. There are plenty of good people in circumstances that don't allow them to donate hard earned money to make their valid, hard earned opinions known. Because they can't afford it, does that make them less worthy of a vote? Abraham Lincoln, while his family began relatively affluent, ultimately lived on public land after the death of his mother and issues with land ownership. I doubt he would have had money to spare for a donation to a political party in those days, do you think his opinions were invalid because he didn't have extra cash? Really?


I'm all for capitalism, don't get me wrong. It is not the same as democracy, it should not be mixed up in democracy. If you tend to think, as the mainstream (media) would have you think, that people who make money are smarter and so their votes are of higher quality then please read the above again. We have the opportunity, perhaps only for a time, to take control and have our voices heard regardless of our ability to pay! Set aside time each day to do a little research on your politicians, local and federal. Spend a little more time writing down your thoughts opinions and ideas. Take just a few more moments to make contact with other people to discuss the issues. Donate some time (perhaps taken from watching commercial laden television, trying to convince you your life is not complete unless you have a summer home, or a second car or? requiring you to work more and spend less time at home with family and on issues that effect your family) to spread the word, at meetings and on the internet. Your life is unique, your opinion counts, make sure you are heard!

Isaiah 1:15

One of the questions in a survey taken recently gave me a rare opportunity to try to summarize the major difference for me between the Democrat and Republican parties. The biggest difference for me has long been the R's reluctance and even refusal to develop and fund social programs. A quick look at history, even from an under-educated point of view, tells us that most countries/empires fall to civil unrest stemming from vast gaps in social status. A few haves controlling the mostly have-nots. Even when the have-nots did not openly rebel, low morale bred lack of support in times of national need leading to the downfall of many civilizations.In the few moments I took to ponder my answer for the survey, I considered how religion has been playing it's role in the last few presidential elections. How it seems the R's have claimed religion as theirs. How this seems strange to me, the R's have never been the 'go to guys' in my mind for 'turning the other cheek' or 'forgiving one's trespass'. Then I suddenly had my one word answer. The biggest difference between the parties, for me, is Charity.

I had long been perplexed at governments failure to learn from the past, especially since it has repeated so many times, but now found myself appalled with the realization that so many R's wave the Christian Banner without representing main Christian values. Jesus turned over the tables of the money changers for the injustice. He gave aid and comfort to those others would not approach. I was reminded of Isaiah recently and the following seems almost to have been written in explanation of my issue with the R's waving the Christian flag:

Isaiah 15
9 When you spread out your hands, I close my eyes to you; Though you pray the more, I will not listen. Your hands are full of blood!
16
Wash yourselves clean! Put away your misdeeds from before my eyes; cease doing evil;
17
learn to do good. Make justice your aim: redress the wronged, hear the orphan's plea, defend the widow.
18
Come now, let us set things right, says the LORD: Though your sins be like scarlet, they may become white as snow; Though they be crimson red, they may become white as wool.
19
If you are willing, and obey, you shall eat the good things of the land;
20
But if you refuse and resist, the sword shall consume you: for the mouth of the LORD has spoken!
21
10 How has she turned adulteress, the faithful city, so upright! Justice used to lodge within her, but now, murderers.
22
Your silver is turned to dross, your wine is mixed with water.
23
Your princes are rebels and comrades of thieves; Each one of them loves a bribe and looks for gifts. The fatherless they defend not, and the widow's plea does not reach them.
24
Now, therefore, says the Lord, the LORD of hosts, the Mighty One of Israel: Ah! I will take vengeance on my foes and fully repay my enemies!
25
I will turn my hand against you, and refine your dross in the furnace, removing all your alloy.
26
I will restore your judges as at first, and your counselors as in the beginning; After that you shall be called city of justice, faithful city.
27
11 Zion shall be redeemed by judgment, and her repentant ones by justice.

I'm not a religious person, I'm barely spiritual, and don't believe religion has a place in politics especially US politics. We have a near perfect list of rules to work with that make it so whatever your religion we can live together fairly and safely with the same opportunity. If you fly a religious banner at me I'm going to expect you to live up to your claim, and R's, you have a bit of work to do.

Edwards Bid shows Poverty not Big Campaign Theme

By Matthew Bigg
ATLANTA (Reuters) - "The inability of John Edwards to gain traction in his bid for the U.S. Democratic presidential nomination indicates that fighting poverty in America has limited appeal for voters.
Edwards told audiences it was 'the issue of my life.' But he dropped out of the race on Wednesday because too few responded to his anger at inequality, his heart-rending stories of suffering and his passion about combating corporate greed."

Movers Meet Shakers at Third Annual Gathering of Bill Clinton’s Global Initiative

We need more of these sorts of gatherings. Or maybe we just need better coverage. I remember being in a Tokyo hotel lounge in ‘91 and overhearing a group of men, Japanese American and Australian I believe, discussing global warming and the various treaties and other measures currently in place. They were quite animated over the course of about 2 hours. At first I thought (or perhaps presumed) they were corporate magnates gathered to imbibe and complain about the restrictions forced on them. It wasn’t too long before I realized that they were, in fact, passionately discussing the corporate world’s refusal to participate in the cause, instead focusing their efforts (i.e. money) into fighting the regulations. This group formed several smaller groups to take on several projects geared toward improving their company’s efforts and getting the word out to other industries. I never did figure out exactly what industry they represented, but it hardly mattered. I was so happy to witness this I bought the table a round of drinks.
Below are excerpts from the article, the link to read the entire article is at the bottom.

Movers Meet Shakers at Third Annual Gathering of Bill Clinton’s Global Initiative
By CELIA W. DUGGER
Published: October 1, 2007

“It was conceived as a kind of activist answer to the gathering of politicians, business people and academics at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. “The origin of this is Davos,” said John Podesta, who was Mr. Clinton’s chief of staff in his presidency’s final years. “There was a feeling that everyone was talking about these causes and no one was doing anything.”
The Clinton event, held over three days at a Sheraton Hotel, featured tightly choreographed sessions to come up with solutions to specific world problems. Each participant was required to promise to do something concrete to make the world a better place. This year’s themes were poverty alleviation, global health, education and climate change.
Here, the people with causes gained access to people with seriously deep pockets. Chad Hurley, a YouTube founder; Larry Brilliant, who leads Google’s philanthropic foundation, and Carlos Slim Helú, ranked by Fortune the world’s richest man, were among almost 1,300 participants.
The furious networking was not subtle. Standing in the midst of a loud party at the Museum of Modern Art, Nancy Collins, a journalist who has covered her share of society events, described the gathering as “one of those where you have to look over your left shoulder for someone more important.”

In hallways, at cocktail parties and around conference tables, leaders of nonprofit groups hustled for valuable connections.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/01/world/01clinton.html?ex=1348977600&en=85e25e1125bf1831&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink


Wednesday October 3, 2007 - 05:07pm (PDT)