I’m a firm believer that any negative can be turned into a positive with a little Yankee ingenuity added to the mix. Take the latest Supreme Court decision allowing corporations to flood as much money as they want into the campaigns of the candidates of their choosing as a perfect example.

While on the surface, this seems like a terrible thing to happen because it defines the end of competitive campaigning.

No one group or organization will be able to raise as much money as a corporate greed machine, so it pretty much makes it inevitable that most, if not all campaign ads will be corporate funded.

This will make it easy to know which candidates the corporations are for and which they’re against, provided grassroots organizations like MoveOn.org don’t try to compete.

A simple ad, constantly run all over the country stating that only corporations are running political ads for candidates now, and unless you want to support the corporate agenda, any candidate being endorsed by these ads will not be working for the people.

Likewise, any negative political advertising can be dealt with in the same fashion. If the corporations are against a candidate, then there’s a good chance he or she will do the most good for the people.

This lets the corporations spend all the money on political ads, and frees up organizations like MoveOn.org to educate people on what corporate endorsed candidates mean for the country.

Technorati Tags: campaign ads, corporate endorsed candidates, corporate political funding, Supreme Court

Hello? Hello?!?

For eight long years we had this guy as the Commander-in-chief, the Leader of the Free World, and an arm’s reach away from the “football.” Is there any wonder why the rest of the world held their collective breath, and why they’re so relieved now?

It’s just amazing after 8 years of Bush, so many of the Teabaggers would want us to go back to that. Do people on the far right all have short term memory loss? Or do they all answer their phones like this?

Technorati Tags: Bush, political opinion, politics, teabaggers, world view

If you ever want to know whether the government is honest, fair, and logical, just ask a Native American . . .

Native view of goverment foolishness

But what this Indian didn’t realize when speaking about the foolishness of the government is . .

1. They didn’t sew the blanket. They used highly classified special staples that cost $600K each.
2. They spent 1000 hours in Congressional committee to decide exactly where each staple would go.
3. The Republicans said no at first because they were holding out for special interests who wanted the blanket cut in many places to use more staples and help the corporate empire who fund their campaigns.
4. The Democrats were split with some wanting to save money by using wider staples costing $900K each but using 10% less over all.

And the secret agenda? It would all be decided on at the last minute, so the work would be done after dark, and nobody would notice nothing changed.

Technorati Tags: daylight savings time, foolishness, government, government waste, Native American

You know, it’s amazing that anything gets done in Washington. Congress is supposed to be looking out for the best interest of the nation, but more often than not, it acts more like its running a three-legged race with a one-legged partner. Someone is always refusing to carry their weight for political or monetary reasons, which makes everything drag on far longer than it should.

Take health care reform for example . . .

There’s absolutely no reason why Congress should be concerning itself with protecting the over glutted coffers of the insurance companies. And yet, it seems making sure the top CEOs continue to bring in 57 thousand dollars an hour is top priority.

Does it make any sense? Well it does if you look at it from a strictly “kick back, re-election fund overflowing with money” point of view. Apparently, when the right wing and blue dogs say the #1 priority in the country is “jobs, jobs, jobs,” they mean their own jobs. Keeping the millions of dollars in contributions streaming in from corporations like the insurance companies, gives them a sense of job security they just can’t seem to pass up.

But we, the people have a recourse! If these politicians think their job security lies in how many deals they can make with corporations, then we need to show them their real job security actually depends on us and our vote.

Think about it, how long will huge re-election funds matter when no one pays any heed to the advertising they pay for? Great ads, with grandiose promises can’t stand up to actual track records on the ground, and so its up to the people to remember what these senators and congressmen really do while on the job, and who they’re actually working for.

Technorati Tags: corporate kick backs, politics, re-election funds, special interests, three-legged race, Washinton, we the people

We hear a lot about special interest groups lobbying Congress to get special corporate favors. They seem to buy senators and representatives who’s votes appear to hold no other logic than to satisfy these lobbyists’ agendas. As these politicians’ re-election funds are padded with corporate money, and their sent on free elaborate vacations, the people should be asking, “What about our special interests?”

While watching TV the other night, a political commercial came on for one of the people running for the late Senator Ted Kennedy’s seat. It was the usual rhetoric about changing Washington, blah, blah, blah. But near the end, the candidate made an interesting statement . . .

He declared, “I will not take any money from Special Interest Groups.”

Wondering if he’d be willing to put that in writing, it occurred to me how great it would be if all candidates running for the 2010 election would be willing to sign a statement proposed to them, declaring themselves off limits to lobbyists.

Perhaps a group like MoveOn.org could head that up?

It would certainly give us an indication of where each candidate stood in regard to doing the right thing and serving the people he or she takes an oath to serve. It wouldn’t have to be an elaborate, drawn out statement either. Just something simple like . . .

“I, [candidate], declare myself off limits to Special Interest Groups, and will not take any money from anyone in exchange for special favors or to sway my vote. If I am elected, I put all citizens on notice that my seat will not be for sale.”

As these signed statements are collected, the running tally of names could be posted online somewhere so everyone could see it. Then we’ll know which candidates are for the people, or for themselves and their corporate buddies.

Then it would be just a matter of us holding them to it.

Technorati Tags: 2010 election, candidates, lobbying, lobbyists, politician, politics, Special Interest Groups, special interests

The Right thinks if we don’t continue the neocon’s programs in dealing with the rest of the world, we’ll be losing the edge in foreign policy. But is this true? Is the “we’d rather bomb you than talk to you” approach the best chance we have for world order? Or is President Obama, our Community-Organizer-in-Chief leading us in the right direction?

Being the schoolyard bully certainly has its perks. Nobody dares take anything that belongs to you, no one would even consider standing up to you, or refusing you your favorite seat in the cafeteria. The downside is, nobody will stand up with you, or share anything with you unless you take it from them.

In other words, bullies have no real friends they can rely on!

Sure they get their way most of the time, because everyone is afraid of them. They also get a lot of space, because no one will go near them. The tough guy life is a lonely life indeed!

And this is exactly what we’ve seen throughout the Bush years. The United States pretty much had to go it alone with just a handful of nations, possessing little power of their own, tagging along. It was very costly for the nation both monetarily and in casualties. The Bush concept of “coerced democracy” left us with a wide berth in the schoolyard, and alienated itself from the rest of the world.

Now we have the “we’re all in this together if its going to work” mentality through President Obama, and the Right Wing thinks we’re a lot less safe. Yet the President is mending alliances throughout the world, including with Russia, and the world is beginning to stand together on some important issues. Sounds a lot safer this way, don’t you think?

I don’t know about you, but I’ve seen many a bully get what’s coming to him when the other kids finally had enough of him. Yet I never did see any kid, with the ability to come up with inclusive ideas for the whole schoolyard, get a beating.

It’s all a very simple equation really, the World is a community (whether anyone likes it or not), and all it needed was a “community organizer” to begin the process of setting things right. So if you ask me if we’re losing the edge in foreign policy with Obama at the helm, I’d have give a resounding “No!”

Technorati Tags: Community Organizer, foreign policy, Obama, Pesident Obama

I kept trying to wrack my brain about who these teabaggers reminded me of. It was something I had witnessed before, but I wasn’t quite sure where or when. Then it hit me!

It was the People’s Front of Judea! Or was that the Judean People’s Front? Splitters!!

Technorati Tags: protesters, teabaggers

In light of all the hubbub going on with right wing protesters who cry out about big government, and government take overs, it would be good if we took a moment remembering the words of Candidate Obama about that very topic during the presidential campaign.

“It’s not whether we have big government, or we have small government. It’s whether or not we have good government. Government that works.”

Now I know we’re all fed up with government bureaucracy, and how it seems when a crisis comes up, the government builds a new department with a whole new set of requirements and regulations, and how even when the crisis passes, the government never backs down. This has created a real mess in the way the country runs, and the taxpayer has to carry the burden of all that wasted effort to keep those agencies functioning with nothing really to do.

But it seems to me, the now President Obama still holds to the concept of good government. He certainly doesn’t seem the sort to waste time, effort or money. And he definitely doesn’t give one the impression that he’s for the “set it and forget it” style of bureaucratic uselessness we’ve seen over the years.

Rather it appears his methods are designed to handle a crisis, see it through, then back off. We see this in how he’s dealt with Wall Street and various other problems. TARP funding is temporary and will not continue once the banks are recovering. The car industry got a boost from government with a bailout and the “cash for clunkers” program, but now they’re relatively on their own.

Regulations need to be put in place to prevent the same problems from occurring again, but this is not “government take over.” It’s government working for the best interests of the people so the people aren’t faced with the same hardships in the future we face now. It’s government protecting the “common wealth” so we can all prosper.

In essence, it’s government doing the job government is suppose to do. To me, that’s good government.

Technorati Tags: bureaucracy, government, government take over, Obama

Among all the FoxSpews zombies at the latest 9/12 march, there was a group who had perfect pitch. Billionaires for Wealthcare sang out the praises of letting things remain as they are. These guys were great, but its amazing how many people around them had no idea Billionaires for Wealthcare were laughing at them.

Check them out

And read more here about the Billionaires for Wealthcare

Technorati Tags: Billionaires for Wealthcare, FoxSpews, protest, tea baggers

At this moment we’re facing one of the most historic votes in Congress. More than sixty years in the making, and finally we may have a real health care reform bill being signed by the President. This was Senator Ted Kennedy’s life work, and sorrowfully he isn’t here to see it through. But what’s even worse is, we may not have full representation from the state he came from. At this point it seems the lights are out in Massachusetts and nobody’s home.

State lawmakers are dragging their feet in allowing Governor Patrick to appoint an interim replacement for Senator Kennedy. This is temporary mind you. The replacement will only be in office until a special election can take place, and the person getting the position cannot run in the election. Its merely to give Massachusetts full representation at this critical time.

Now I understand the “what’s good for the goose is good for the gander” problem. If the Democrats in Massachusetts allow this now, it could happen again when a Republican governor is in office later. Naturally a Republican governor would appoint a Republican replacement, and that could spell problems for the state.

But its only temporary! Senator Kennedy asked for an interim replacement pending a special election. So even if a future Republican governor got the opportunity to appoint someone somewhere down the road, the special election would remedy the situation with little time to do very much damage to the state’s policies.

So what’s the problem here? Will someone please turn the lights back on?!?

Technorati Tags: interim replacement, Massachusetts, Massachusetts lawmakers, Senator Kennedy, special election