Two stories—one local and one national—do much to define the political money chase in the electoral process nowadays. Nationally, the proliferation of “independent committees” is about to sink the process in a sea of dollars and special interest “juice.” The so-called “Swift Boat” attacks on John Kerry in 2004 that came from such a committee that raised $25 million from many dubious sources, was fatal to his chances. They managed to turn a decorated war hero into a wimp and shirker. After the election, the Federal Elections Commission fined this committee $300,000. Big deal! The dirty job was done; the election was won.
Recently, the San Jose Elections Commission fined Pacific Park Management (PPM) of San Francisco $5,000 for “bundling” donations to Cindy Chavez and later reimbursing their employees. The commission further said that Chavez was not involved in the scheme. PPM company officials had originally denied the charges, but a disgruntled former employee (there are always a few of them around, thankfully) blew the whistle. As in most cases, the election has long been over and the captains, kings, and consultants have departed.
What is the lesson here?
A highly principled candidate, Barrack Obama, exemplifies what can be done. He recently disassociated himself from a committee raising big money beyond legal limits to do television ads in his favor. He then went on to discourage his supporters from contributing to this exploitation of a loophole in the campaign limits. That shows courage and character. Actions such as this could stem the flow of this mostly negative money into our local and national campaigns and draw a line on events that are so cheapening and bastardizing them.
In the last mayor’s race, a number of developers funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars, perhaps as much as a million, into the Chavez campaign via the Labor/Democratic independent committee to go with the gambling money, funds from out-of-town ciphers and—you name it. Unless, like Captain Renault in “Casablanca,” you suspend disbelief (and hope for a big payoff), you cannot believe that Chavez and her allies did not know, at least indirectly, that this was occurring. I believe they knew, and in the flimsy chance they did not, no one that oblivious should be mayor.
Combine these committees with the Chamber of Commerce’s equally “independent” but far less abundant money in favor of Chuck Reed, and it cries out for more candidates with the courage of Obama to say “enough.” There are many unanswered questions about the recent financing of the mayor’s race and the hidden monies that propelled it. We need more people with the character of Obama who show the strength and wisdom of a president.
Talk about money well spent. Only 25 million to keep that “WIMP AND SHIRKER” out of the
white house. WOW !!!!
I will, Gus, I will. Patience is a great virtue. TMcE
2- I thought the “wimp and shirker” was the one who did get
elected and has infested the White House for the past 7 years.
Tom,
When the Chamber went after Cindy, they had not endorced Chuck, they endorced Michael. So why do you think Chuck had any reason to disassociate himself from the Chamber, when they kept a fair distance from him in the first place?
Secondly, as much as I admire Obama’s decision, and plan to vote for him, we have allowed our political system to become out of control. If you are a good person who loves their community, or this country and they try to run against these special interest candidates, they haven’t got a prayer in hell of winning. Our system of politics is, the one with the most MONEY wins, not the one who has integrity, and love for his/her community, and the American people. Until that changes, we’re stuck with choosing between the lesser of two evils, you know, garbage, or garbage~
Oh puh-leeease. Obama’s campaign is tallying purchasers of buttons, t-shirts, and other giveaway items the same as CASH donors. Someone who buys a bumper sticker for 50 cents is not the same as someone who gives $50 in cash. Such actions artificially inflate the number of donors, thereby “cheapening and bastardizing” the metric of number of donors. Then his people get out and brag about the groundswell of their [fake] grassroots “movement.”
Yeah, that’s principled. Sounds more like another big phony.
If you really drink the Obama kool-aid, read the first item here: http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110010471
Maybe I’m just too cynical for Obama.
#4 – You are partially correct. You have to add liar to wimp and shirker to be correct.
Is that “highly principled” Obama the same one who appeared before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) last March and, addressing what he described as a “small gathering of friends,” kissed their duplicitous behinds while ignoring the fact that their leaders were under indictment for stealing American military secrets?
Is that “highly principled” Obama the same one who, after pledging a “clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel,” recited the names of the three kidnapped (captured?) Israeli soldiers as if he were a dutiful schoolboy performing for his stern taskmaster? Bet your last dollar that Barrack pronounced each one of those very ethnic names correctly, lest his mistake be caught by the many “Americans” in the audience who have committed those names to memory, even if they couldn’t name, and aren’t related to, a single US soldier in Iraq.
How much “courage and character” does it require for a candidate who voted against the war in Iraq (AIPAC’s war, to a considerable degree) to surrender his pride and better sense so he could brand Iran as “one of the greatest threats to the United States, Israel and world peace?” Iran, the nation that couldn’t beat Saddam’s “know when to fold ‘em” army, a threat to the US? Iran, whose missiles couldn’t hit Italy, a threat to our shores? So desperate was Obama to justify this hogwash that he reminded the audience that didn’t need reminding that Amadinejad had “denied the holocaust!!!”
Well, that settles it. Let’s nuke ‘em. Even if Iran’s president didn’t really do that; even if all he did was to hold a conference open to all opinions and evidence (something that could not legally happen in most of “free” Europe), that’s no excuse for offending a group whose suffering, according to their own hype, is beyond understanding.
And perhaps that is why Obama promised those kind and gentle folks at AIPAC (whose children bunk in dorms, not barracks) that he would not take military action against Iran “off the table.” Translated: as president, Obama would send American soldiers to their deaths in defense of: a)Israel; b) the official holocaust narrative: c) his own political future.
What a guy! Just what this country needs: another scoundrel blinded by personal ambition and willing to purchase political influence by spending American military lives.
Can I get a show of hands (a reply will do) from everyone out there willing to send a son, daughter, brother, or sister to Iran to fight in Obama’s war to protect Israel and Jewish sensitivities?
I didn’t think so.
NOTE
I learned yesterday that Santa Clara County prosecutors have dropped all criminal charges against San Jose lobbyists Tony Arreola and Sean Kali-Rai, former aides to ex-Mayor Ron Gonzales. I will address this matter here on SJI in the near future.
#8- Everything you’ve said is true. But let me point out one very important thing, your comments about the lack of integrity of Obama can be applied to everyone of the candidates running for ANY office. Again I’ll say, “we’re stuck with choosing between the lesser of two evils, you know, garbage, or garbage~” At least Obama is more open about his stands. Hilary is a fake, who couldn’t answer a direct question if it exploded in her face.
It is no wonder that many people have stopped voting. I guess these people don’t realize their votes could stop this corruption in it’s tracks. Either that, or they just don’t care any more.
9 – you can’t be serious. “everything (#8) said is true?” you don’t have a problem with his vicious anti-jewish venom? it’s ok that he thinks holocaust deniers should be given equal status with victims of the holocaust? if you really think what he said is ok then i’m off to find another blog that doesn’t tolerate the kind of thinly veiled hatred that FF loves to inflict. FF will deny any such thing but only those who live with him under his rock will be fooled.
#10- My point is that I think all politicans lie. I don’t think a single one of them would know the truth from a polish sandwich! If you look at who’s donating to both sides, it’s enough to make you sick. Hilary has done a complete about face on medical care for everyone, and now takes huge donations from drug companies and other lobbists. I’m really disappointed in her. Obama, in my opinion, is the lesser of two evils. He’s getting bashed because he says what others think, or do behind closed doors.
And no, for the sake of clarification, I don’t think prejudice is acceptable from anyone or toward anyone. I do however, feel that people have a right to their opinions, regardless of how dumb and uneducated they are~
Thank you Adolph (#9) for sharing your knee-jerk hysteria and totalitarian-impulses to help shed light on an important issue.
I have no doubt that in your world, where holocaust dogma is held with a reverence denied all other beliefs, the suggestion that your particular beliefs be subjected to the natural human skepticism that is allowed of all other aspects of history, factual or not, is considered more than enough cause to suspend the Bill of Rights and rain ruination down upon the culprit; in this case, me.
Tell me, Comrade, exactly what is it about the holocaust that makes it more special than the destruction of the Maine, Pearl Harbor, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the assassination of JFK, the Gulf of Tonkin incident, the Iran-Contra affair, or the 9-11 attacks? Every single one of those incidents, incidents all critically important to our history and our understanding of ourselves, has been examined in detail, endlessly questioned, and to this very day subjected to doubt and disbelief. If we here in America can question the “official” narrative of our leaders, war heroes, and national honor, please explain how it is that we should not question anything else?
You ask: “should holocaust deniers be given equal status with victims of the holocaust?” My answer: what is a holocaust denier? Is there a precise definition, or is it simply anyone who doesn’t worship at your alter? If there are no 9-11 deniers or Pearl Harbor deniers or Magic Bullet deniers—if they are instead just historians, investigators, quacks, buffs, or whatever, then under what authority do you claim the power to demonize this one particular brand of skepticism? Given the billions of dollars, disputed territorial claims, and critical foreign policy decisions that are directly linked to the “official” holocaust narrative, how can any group, let alone the one cashing in, insist that there aren’t legitimate reasons to exam it without looking as if it is hiding something?
You couch you objections in the verbiage of a victim, yet your desire to silence those who seek an open dialogue identifies you as an enemy of freedom. Perhaps that makes you a freedom-denier.
Could there be anything worse?
Two seconds after the US Supreme Court decided that giving $$ to political candidates was SPEECH, and thus free from government intrusion, we were in spitting distance of the bottom of a very slippery slope.
The only antidote is an informed and engaged electorate that shows up on election day in droves. When’s the last time we had that?
Re the SwiftBoat stuff at the top of today’s blog…
Here are the SwiftBoat’ers and their side of the story. http://www.swiftvets.com/swiftvetsandpows/
MediaMatters (run by Clinton types) does a great job of personal destruction on the SwiftBoat’ers. But for some reason MM never actually get around to refuting the accusations made by the SwiftBoat’ers.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200408250002
Here’s a recent development..
Sen. Kerry permits last statute of limitations for defamation to lapse, forever barring any defamation claim against SwiftVet authors O’Neill and Corsi
http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/2007/08/sen-kerry-permi.html
Pretty amazing that the ‘victim’ of the “Swift Boat” attack that sunk his presidential campaign wouldn’t go after the principles and clear his good name.
Your line:
“They managed to turn a decorated war hero into a wimp and shirker.”
should be rewritten:
“They managed to expose a self-aggrandizing creep as the wimp and shirker that he is.”