For 232 years character and integrity have played an integral role in presidential politics. For 232 years, Americans have elected Presidents not based upon the proposition that asks what your country can do for you, but rather the proposition that you "ask what you can do for your country". In this election we have been told over and over again that we should ignore and not ask any questions concerning character and integrity. We have been told to ignore the most crucial priority for government to protect our sovereignty, while being told that the most important issue is what our government can do to solve our individual challenges; and for the first time in Presidential politics it appears that character and integrity no longer matter.
Senator Obama talks eloquently about the politics of distraction, yet every time from the primaries to today, when character or integrity has been elevated we have been distracted and subject changed. Today, I cannot stress enough the importance in this statement, 'The Presidency Has Everything To Do With Character and Integrity".
No one in this election has been able to effectively question the strength of Senator McCain's character. When the issue has been raised, the Obama campaign has to revert to misleading allegations stemming from the Keating 5 controversy that occurred well over 20 years ago. Their best attempt to question Senator McCain's integrity has been built upon an event in which both federal prosecutors and congress exonerated Senator McCain. Their best attempt to question his integrity has been built upon an event in which John McCain was the only one of the Keating 5 to stand-up and actually testify against Keating in a court room.
On the other side of the ticket, however, we have a candidate whom in his unusually short time in politics has been mired in controversy and aligned himself with some of the most questionable individuals in America. Time and time again when we Senator Obama's associations and friendships have been raised, we have been told to ignore them; that they don't matter; that they are a distraction. Yet, even if you believe this rhetoric and choose to view these friendships as mere coincidences, certainly there must be a point at which any reasonable person has to admit that some of these friendships existed. Certainly, there must be a point at which any rational individual has to admit that this is a disturbing pattern.
Whether it is Wright, Rezko, Ayers, Dohrn, Frank Marshall Davis, Khalidi, Klonsky, Odinga, his membership in the socialist based "New Party" or others, Obama's relationships may have been inconsequential with some, but certainly not all. Are we to believe that after 20 years it does not matter that Senator Obama sat in the pews of a church that openly empathized with terrorist organizations such as hamas, while preaching at times an anti-America, anti-Semitic and race baiting theology. Can we believe that Senator Obama who openly admitted to seeking out relationships with "Marxists" in his own memoirs was somehow just seeking enlightenment and does not prescribe to these worldly views. If so, then why is that Senator Obama never sought out relationships with the radical right, or even the right-leaning. I will admit that I don't believe that Senator Obama was best friends with all of these individuals, but no rational person can deny that individuals such as Frank Marshall and Rev. Wright played influenced the belief system of Obama.
What is disturbing to me and should disturb everyone isn't the fact that some of these relationships existed, but rather the fact that Senator Obama denies their existence, avoids the subject or downplays the scope of the relationship. If he lacks the basic character and integrity to honestly and openly admit to these relationships and why he chose to align himself with these types of individuals, then how can we entrust him with the most powerful political leadership role in the world.
Senator Obama talks eloquently about the need for service, the need to reach out to our neighbors, the patriotism behind choosing to pay higher taxes; Senator Obama talks eloquently about 'Spreading the wealth'; but in his own life he has displayed a lack of generosity that is phenomenal. Between 1995 and 2005 the Obama family literally generated millions of dollars in income. Yet despite making more more in a ten year period than most Americans will earn in a lifetime, they contributed nearly nothing to charity, and when I say nearly nothing, I mean nearly nothing. It wasn't until he set his sights on the Presidency that Senator Obama made a commitment to charity. Yet, despite earning over $2.5 million in 2006 and 2007, Senator Obama gave less than 3% to charity. Senator Obama has developed a career by speaking about the need to help those less fortunate, that Americanism is built upon generosity; yet Senator Obama apparently believes that only others should display the generosity he speaks so eloquently about.
More disturbing, however, is the hypocrisy of a man who will stand on a stage and tell Americans about the need to help the hand-picked Americans who are struggling in their individual lives and in need of help, while at the same time providing no assistance to those family members who are struggling. We learned over the summer of Senator Obama's brother in Kenya who earns less in one week than a minimum wage worker in America earns in one hour. Senator Obama, with his vast resources has to this date not reached out to assist his own brother. Just this week the Times located Senator Obama's aunt, an aunt he spoke fondly of in his memoirs. Unfortunately, this Aunt is living in a run down building in the slums of Boston. So again, despite his millions in income, this man who speaks so fondly of generosity has never reached out to help out his Aunt. Even more disturbing is the revelation that while not providing assistance to his own Aunt, he actually accepted $260 in campaign contributions from her. I have serious problems with an individual worth millions who will gladly accept money from a relative living in the slums while talking about the need for us to reach out and help others. Again, the presidency has everything to do with integrity and character.
Senator Obama campaigned on a platform during the primaries that he was a centrist, a moderate and a platform from which he proposed he could reach out move this country forward in a new era of post-partisanship. However, today Senator Obama speaks nothing of a post-partisan era; his campaign platform has shifted radically left and no objective and reasonable individual could ever truthfully believe that the Republican Party will ever cooperate with an Obama administration. If Senator Obama wins, the filibuster will become America's best friend and the lone check available to protect this nation against a radical lurch towards the left. Senator Obama has shifted his campaign platform to suit the current challenges of the electorate in order to capture votes, with no regard to even the most basic promises such as his opposition to FISA, opposition to offshore drilling or campaign financing. Although I disagree with a majority of Senator Obama's policies, at least I could have respected his integrity and strength of character if he were to actually state his true positions. How can any rational individual believe any promise that Senator Obama makes, when he has time and time demonstrated that winning an election is more important than the most basic of beliefs.
Character and integrity are defined by the actions you take, not the positions you hold. Senator Obama has demonstrated no integrity nor strength of character during this election. Obama has avoided any questions as to his past, distracted the American people from who he truly is and relied upon the naive belief that the Government can solve our individual challenges. For his part Senator McCain has faced staunch criticism, even from those within his own party; yet, Senator McCain has stood his ground and displayed a strength of character that is commendable even by his detractors. Senator Obama has avoided criticism and his campaign has sought to personally destroy anyone with the audacity to question his strength of character. The media has been willing accomplices in this destructive behavior, even remaining silent when the President of France refers to Obama's Foreign Policy as 'naive'.
The presidency is position which is entirely based upon character and integrity. Without these traits, then it is naive to believe that our president would ever make the hard or unpopular decisions that all President's must make. Without these traits then it is ridiculous to believe that the President would ever carry out true reform, carry out his campaign commitments or move this country forward.
The presidency is 100% about character and integrity and I suppose we will find out in a few hours if these are traits we no longer value and require from the President of the United States.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Monday, November 3, 2008
Obama Plan for Economic Despair
With just one day until the election, the real world effects of Barack Obama's economic and energy plans have 'come home to roost'.
Consider this...
According to the Department of Labor, 80% of Small Business profits and employment are derived by small businesses that have profits in excess of $250,000. These small businesses will which represent the primary strength of our economy will face a double whammy under a potential Obama administration.
First, the tax rates of these small businesses will increase. The result will force these small employers will in turn suffer slower growth as more money flows to the government and away from the business itself. The small business employers will hire fewer employees and in an attempt to maintain profitability during times of slow growth will most likely rely upon a combination of layoffs and higher prices.
Second, Senator Obama wants to impose a second increased expense upon these small businesses. Obama has promised to increase the Federal Minimum Wage to over $9.50 per hour within the next three years. The problem with Obama's proposal is not an increase in the minimum wage, but rather the size of the increase and timing of the increase. The United States is entering a recession, during which unemployment is on the rise. The absolute worst thing that could be done at this time is to force an increase in the Federal Minimum Wage.
The minimum wage primarily affects small businesses and particularly the service sector. A rise in the minimum wage, during an economic downturn will only force small businesses that are struggling to maintain profitability to either dramatically raise prices, or most likely eliminate jobs.
Just consider if you owned a small business that employees 10 individuals at the minimum wage. Obama's wage increase would have the financial equivalent of you hiring an additional 4 employees. As a small business owner, are you now likely to go out and hire additional employees? No... During a recessionary period in which business revenue is shrinking, are you going to raise prices? No...Instead you are now likely to make cuts, and in most cases those cuts will come from your payroll expenses.
During recessionary periods our government should be looking to help protect job creation, not imposing additional taxes and expenses of employers. The minimum wage issue has had little discussion, but the ill-timing of his proposed increase only demonstrates the true destructive nature of Obama' economic policies.
Onto Energy...
Remember just one month ago...when Senator Biden stated that Obama was opposed to clean coal?? Obama immediately came forth and stated that Biden was wrong and that he supports the coal industry as a vital part of our nation's economy.
Yet, yesterday audio recordings of Senator Obama in an interview with the San Fransisco Chronicle surfaced in which he stated, "If somebody wants to build a coal power plant they can, it's just that it will bankrupt them because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."
That interview took place in January of this year, just 10 short months ago. The interview supports Senator Biden's assessment and supports what Obama's opposition has claimed for months. Under the Obama Energy Plan, US coal production will fall as production expenses and taxes increase to a point that the business is no longer viable.
Moreover, Senator Obama continues to lambaste oil companies, calling for a Windfall Profits Tax to pay for his energy proposals. The problem however is that Obama's WPT is not based upon actual profits, it is based upon the gross cost of a barrel of oil. Under Obama's plan the government would impose a steep tax on any barrel of oil that is traded at a cost above $80 per barrel. Yet, today the cost of a barrel of oil is well below $80 per barrel. As a result, Obama's own energy proposals no longer have any funding. So what now?
Since Senator Obama is still discussing the tax, you can only assume one of two things must occur. One, an Obama administration would work to artificially inflate prices to a point well above $80 per barrel. The public would be forced to pay higher prices, domestic production would fall, but the government could collect their valuable taxes. Or... Obama will simply lower his target price, imposing the massive tax on on barrels trading for far below $80 per barrel. Again the result would be a mass exodus of domestic production and a destruction of oil company profits that would endanger the entire industry. Either way, the result will not be good for our economy.
With just one day left until this election, the American people need to wake up. Although Senator Obama's over-populous messages sound grand, the reality is that they are economically irresponsible, especially during periods of increased recessionary periods. Obama is appealing to nothing more than the self-centered nature of so many Americans who want to blame those who are more fortunate for their woes and believe that the government is somehow the solution to their economic woes. Americans need to stop putting themselves first and put this nation first. A strong economy is built upon policies that promote job creation, not punish the small businesses that create a majority of our nations jobs. A wealthy nation, which utilizes its own resources and works increase domestic production can do far more for improving the lives of it's citizens, developing new technologies and protecting the environment. Our nation has the highest standard of living of any nation in the world, yet Senator Obama wants to change "decades" (did you catch that) "DECADES" of economic policy to move towards a European Socialist Economy. Obama has promised everything to everybody and that is a recipe for disaster.
So with one day left, if you know anyone in these battleground states, call them. If you know anyone in a state that is not even a battleground state, call them, talk to them and let them know what the mainstream media is not telling them. If your a small business owner, let everyone know what the effects of an Obama administration will do to your business. Fight for your business, fight for your employees and end this madness and the potential election of this Manchurian candidate.
Consider this...
According to the Department of Labor, 80% of Small Business profits and employment are derived by small businesses that have profits in excess of $250,000. These small businesses will which represent the primary strength of our economy will face a double whammy under a potential Obama administration.
First, the tax rates of these small businesses will increase. The result will force these small employers will in turn suffer slower growth as more money flows to the government and away from the business itself. The small business employers will hire fewer employees and in an attempt to maintain profitability during times of slow growth will most likely rely upon a combination of layoffs and higher prices.
Second, Senator Obama wants to impose a second increased expense upon these small businesses. Obama has promised to increase the Federal Minimum Wage to over $9.50 per hour within the next three years. The problem with Obama's proposal is not an increase in the minimum wage, but rather the size of the increase and timing of the increase. The United States is entering a recession, during which unemployment is on the rise. The absolute worst thing that could be done at this time is to force an increase in the Federal Minimum Wage.
The minimum wage primarily affects small businesses and particularly the service sector. A rise in the minimum wage, during an economic downturn will only force small businesses that are struggling to maintain profitability to either dramatically raise prices, or most likely eliminate jobs.
Just consider if you owned a small business that employees 10 individuals at the minimum wage. Obama's wage increase would have the financial equivalent of you hiring an additional 4 employees. As a small business owner, are you now likely to go out and hire additional employees? No... During a recessionary period in which business revenue is shrinking, are you going to raise prices? No...Instead you are now likely to make cuts, and in most cases those cuts will come from your payroll expenses.
During recessionary periods our government should be looking to help protect job creation, not imposing additional taxes and expenses of employers. The minimum wage issue has had little discussion, but the ill-timing of his proposed increase only demonstrates the true destructive nature of Obama' economic policies.
Onto Energy...
Remember just one month ago...when Senator Biden stated that Obama was opposed to clean coal?? Obama immediately came forth and stated that Biden was wrong and that he supports the coal industry as a vital part of our nation's economy.
Yet, yesterday audio recordings of Senator Obama in an interview with the San Fransisco Chronicle surfaced in which he stated, "If somebody wants to build a coal power plant they can, it's just that it will bankrupt them because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted."
That interview took place in January of this year, just 10 short months ago. The interview supports Senator Biden's assessment and supports what Obama's opposition has claimed for months. Under the Obama Energy Plan, US coal production will fall as production expenses and taxes increase to a point that the business is no longer viable.
Moreover, Senator Obama continues to lambaste oil companies, calling for a Windfall Profits Tax to pay for his energy proposals. The problem however is that Obama's WPT is not based upon actual profits, it is based upon the gross cost of a barrel of oil. Under Obama's plan the government would impose a steep tax on any barrel of oil that is traded at a cost above $80 per barrel. Yet, today the cost of a barrel of oil is well below $80 per barrel. As a result, Obama's own energy proposals no longer have any funding. So what now?
Since Senator Obama is still discussing the tax, you can only assume one of two things must occur. One, an Obama administration would work to artificially inflate prices to a point well above $80 per barrel. The public would be forced to pay higher prices, domestic production would fall, but the government could collect their valuable taxes. Or... Obama will simply lower his target price, imposing the massive tax on on barrels trading for far below $80 per barrel. Again the result would be a mass exodus of domestic production and a destruction of oil company profits that would endanger the entire industry. Either way, the result will not be good for our economy.
With just one day left until this election, the American people need to wake up. Although Senator Obama's over-populous messages sound grand, the reality is that they are economically irresponsible, especially during periods of increased recessionary periods. Obama is appealing to nothing more than the self-centered nature of so many Americans who want to blame those who are more fortunate for their woes and believe that the government is somehow the solution to their economic woes. Americans need to stop putting themselves first and put this nation first. A strong economy is built upon policies that promote job creation, not punish the small businesses that create a majority of our nations jobs. A wealthy nation, which utilizes its own resources and works increase domestic production can do far more for improving the lives of it's citizens, developing new technologies and protecting the environment. Our nation has the highest standard of living of any nation in the world, yet Senator Obama wants to change "decades" (did you catch that) "DECADES" of economic policy to move towards a European Socialist Economy. Obama has promised everything to everybody and that is a recipe for disaster.
So with one day left, if you know anyone in these battleground states, call them. If you know anyone in a state that is not even a battleground state, call them, talk to them and let them know what the mainstream media is not telling them. If your a small business owner, let everyone know what the effects of an Obama administration will do to your business. Fight for your business, fight for your employees and end this madness and the potential election of this Manchurian candidate.
The Haves:The Have Nots
It is unfortunate that only now in the final days of the campaign that Americans are finally beginning to question Senator Obama's Redistributive Tax Plans. For the past four months I have given Senator Obama a pass on a question that I have always wondered about and now it seems he has answered that question for me.
Senator Obama just a year ago stated that we needed to raise taxes on just the top 1% of taxpayers; those making over $300,000 per year. In the past four months that group has expanded to those individuals and small businesses making over $250,000 per year. Campaign statements and commercials have further expanded that group to those making over $200,000 per year and even Joe Biden brought up questions when he chose to inadvertently suggest a $150,000 per year figure.
Last week the Wall Street Journal exposed the reality of Obama's Tax Plans by analyzing his tax increases and determining that in reality his own proposals would cause increased taxes on individuals making $168,000 per year. Unfortunately, last night Senator Obama proved the Wall Street Journal wrong when he once again shifted his tax policies.
For months I have wondered how Senator Obama's tax increases would affect those families who filed joint returns. Would the tax increase actually amount to an increase on families earning $400,000 - 500,000 per year or would the inverse occur in which joint filers would see an increase in taxes at a joint income of $200,000 - $250,000 annually. Last night, Senator Obama put that question to rest when he announced to the nation that "families earning over $250,000 per year would see a tax increase".
"FAMILIES"! Not Individuals!
So now it appears that Senator Obama is not longer targeting the top 1% of taxpayers, but rather the top 10% of taxpayers. That 10% that makes over $125,000 per year; That 10% that currently pays an astounding 60% of all US Income Taxes according to IRS records.
Moreover, since Senator Obama himself has consistently flipped between the $200k and $250k figure, it is safe to assume that Obama's tax increase could easily hit individual taxpayers and SMALL BUSINESSES making just $100,000 annually. In addition, if you examine the full extent of his tax proposals as the Wall Street Journal has you can now begin to see that Obama's tax increases will likely hit those individuals and SMALL BUSINESSES earning over $84,000 per year.
We are no longer talking about the top 1%, or even the top 2% of earners. With a tax increase that will hit individuals earning $84,000 - $125,000 per year, the top 20% of taxpayers and small businesses would now see an increase in taxes. This expansion of Obama's tax increase base amounts to an increase in taxes on a group 20 times larger than his initial proposals. Now imagine if this is not the end.
Senator Obama seems to believe that he is Robin Hood, and portrays himself as a savior who will take from the rich and provide to the poor and those in-between. In reality, however, Senator Obama more closely resembles the Prince John, the great tax collector who will arbitrarily determine who is deserving of receiving a pittance of the tax dollars collected. It is now becoming apparent that Senator Obama's tax plans would increase the taxes on those individuals and small businesses that already account for over 70% of all tax revenue, only to disproportionately "Spread The Wealth", from the bottom-up, starting with the 40% of individuals who already pay NO TAXES.
This is not change we can believe in, this is change that will squander any increase in government revenues, irreparably damage small business and accelerate the already shrinking middle-class of our nation causing a massive disparity between the classes.
Senator Obama will tell you that his plans start from the bottom-up, increasing the incomes of the poor and creating a stronger middle class. Unfortunately, in practice, his oppressive tax proposals will achieve only 3 things:
1. The already wealthy, whose assets far exceed their living expenses will continue to see their wealth and power grow as these tax proposals only affect income. The rich will become richer.
2. Upward mobility from the middle class to the upper class will increasingly shrink as those who are building wealth see increasingly larger percentages of their earnings flow out the door. The result is stagnation in the upper class and a growing disparity between the upper and middle class. Small business owners pounded by an increasing tax burden will see profits shrink, therefore causing an increase in prices and less hiring. The rise in the cost of small business goods and services will reverberate through the economy, further eroding upward mobility and causing a rise in inflation.
3. Those earners in the lower class will become increasingly dependent upon government entitlements; entitlements that will prove futile as unemployment rises and inflation sets in.
Senator Obama's dream, is a dream of a nation in which there is no poor, only a middle class. In reality, we have seen this dream before; some nations have prescribed to this doctrine and their intent has created societies which have collapsed or which survive without a middle class; nations of truly the have and have nots.
Senator Obama just a year ago stated that we needed to raise taxes on just the top 1% of taxpayers; those making over $300,000 per year. In the past four months that group has expanded to those individuals and small businesses making over $250,000 per year. Campaign statements and commercials have further expanded that group to those making over $200,000 per year and even Joe Biden brought up questions when he chose to inadvertently suggest a $150,000 per year figure.
Last week the Wall Street Journal exposed the reality of Obama's Tax Plans by analyzing his tax increases and determining that in reality his own proposals would cause increased taxes on individuals making $168,000 per year. Unfortunately, last night Senator Obama proved the Wall Street Journal wrong when he once again shifted his tax policies.
For months I have wondered how Senator Obama's tax increases would affect those families who filed joint returns. Would the tax increase actually amount to an increase on families earning $400,000 - 500,000 per year or would the inverse occur in which joint filers would see an increase in taxes at a joint income of $200,000 - $250,000 annually. Last night, Senator Obama put that question to rest when he announced to the nation that "families earning over $250,000 per year would see a tax increase".
"FAMILIES"! Not Individuals!
So now it appears that Senator Obama is not longer targeting the top 1% of taxpayers, but rather the top 10% of taxpayers. That 10% that makes over $125,000 per year; That 10% that currently pays an astounding 60% of all US Income Taxes according to IRS records.
Moreover, since Senator Obama himself has consistently flipped between the $200k and $250k figure, it is safe to assume that Obama's tax increase could easily hit individual taxpayers and SMALL BUSINESSES making just $100,000 annually. In addition, if you examine the full extent of his tax proposals as the Wall Street Journal has you can now begin to see that Obama's tax increases will likely hit those individuals and SMALL BUSINESSES earning over $84,000 per year.
We are no longer talking about the top 1%, or even the top 2% of earners. With a tax increase that will hit individuals earning $84,000 - $125,000 per year, the top 20% of taxpayers and small businesses would now see an increase in taxes. This expansion of Obama's tax increase base amounts to an increase in taxes on a group 20 times larger than his initial proposals. Now imagine if this is not the end.
Senator Obama seems to believe that he is Robin Hood, and portrays himself as a savior who will take from the rich and provide to the poor and those in-between. In reality, however, Senator Obama more closely resembles the Prince John, the great tax collector who will arbitrarily determine who is deserving of receiving a pittance of the tax dollars collected. It is now becoming apparent that Senator Obama's tax plans would increase the taxes on those individuals and small businesses that already account for over 70% of all tax revenue, only to disproportionately "Spread The Wealth", from the bottom-up, starting with the 40% of individuals who already pay NO TAXES.
This is not change we can believe in, this is change that will squander any increase in government revenues, irreparably damage small business and accelerate the already shrinking middle-class of our nation causing a massive disparity between the classes.
Senator Obama will tell you that his plans start from the bottom-up, increasing the incomes of the poor and creating a stronger middle class. Unfortunately, in practice, his oppressive tax proposals will achieve only 3 things:
1. The already wealthy, whose assets far exceed their living expenses will continue to see their wealth and power grow as these tax proposals only affect income. The rich will become richer.
2. Upward mobility from the middle class to the upper class will increasingly shrink as those who are building wealth see increasingly larger percentages of their earnings flow out the door. The result is stagnation in the upper class and a growing disparity between the upper and middle class. Small business owners pounded by an increasing tax burden will see profits shrink, therefore causing an increase in prices and less hiring. The rise in the cost of small business goods and services will reverberate through the economy, further eroding upward mobility and causing a rise in inflation.
3. Those earners in the lower class will become increasingly dependent upon government entitlements; entitlements that will prove futile as unemployment rises and inflation sets in.
Senator Obama's dream, is a dream of a nation in which there is no poor, only a middle class. In reality, we have seen this dream before; some nations have prescribed to this doctrine and their intent has created societies which have collapsed or which survive without a middle class; nations of truly the have and have nots.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
History Lessons For A Forgetful Nation
A lot of things bewilder me. Junior high kids carrying cell phones. Liberal actors in Hollywood naming their kids after fruit and then with straight faces telling reporters they raise their kids in Europe so they’ll be more refined. Iran is on the United Nations Human Rights Council?
But one of the toughest intellectual pills to swallow continues to be the American people’s insistence upon forgetting our own history. (Even recent history.)
How it is that any American over the age of 35 could have lived through any of the Cold War, seen the collapse of Communist Russia, witnessed the remarkable improvement in the quality of life for those previously living in USSR-controlled states, and could then turn around and vote for any enthusiastically pro-big government politician at any level of power in our own country is beyond me. It truly is mind-boggling. Pulitzer-prize winning columnist Charles Krauthammer would accuse such an American voter of being on a perpetual “vacation from history.”
Collectivist, state-controlled, bureaucratic quagmires of incompetence, the kind Moscow insisted for decades would eventually come to dominate every national capital around the globe, collapsed largely under the sheer weight of their own ineffectiveness. The pro-democratic, pro-capitalistic philosophy of the Western world, led most notably by the United States and Britain, rose to the challenge of staring down yet another brand of totalitarianism in Soviet Russia as they had done in Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.
The Cold War, a conflict primarily ideological and economic in nature, was for the hearts, minds and control of planet earth. The Communists told us these were the stakes, and the wise among us rightly believed them. In 1980, the year Ronald Reagan was elected our 40th president, the stark reality was a nuclear-armed Russian enemy that seemed to match us in size, scope, influence, and military might. By the end of 1991, the Berlin Wall had been toppled and our long-time, now one-time, Soviet adversary was being read his last rights.
The incredible fact that America actually won the Cold War, and just how unlikely that prospect previously had been to most journalists and professors during the 30 years leading up to the USSR’s defeat, is entirely lost on my generation. But people my age and younger at least have an excuse: we were like eight years old (or not yet born) when it all went down. To all of those over 35 who are voting for Obama in 2008, what is your excuse? How do you explain supporting a ticket that is proudly promising policies, tax rates, and welfare programs that would do Old Lenin’s heart proud?
In light of what history has to teach us about the West’s superiority in the realm of ideas and ideals, why are we so afraid to admit when something works? Has the Left’s jihad of political correctness and multiculturalism numbed our “objective reality” sensors? There is truth out there. There are better ways of doing things than others. Just ask the Kremlin. Free market democracy works, and works well. Bloated, nanny-state bureaucracy isn’t just inefficient, it is a terminal disease to any nation unfortunate (or foolish) enough to contract it.
In his 2006 magnum opus America Alone, distinguished author and columnist Mark Steyn describes what he believes were the two most important events of the last quarter of the 20th century: the collapse of Communism in the eastern bloc and the collapse of confidence in the West. For a few brief, fleeting moments in the early 1990’s the world marveled at the unexpected disintegration of Soviet Russia, and freedom-loving people everywhere rejoiced. But that was about it. People felt positive emotions for a while and then went back to their lives as if the previous four decades of hostility, conflict, ideological competition and proxy wars between the USSR and U.S. had never occurred. Less important still in the minds of most Americans and Western Europeans appeared to be an appreciation and understanding of how and why it was, as President Regan promised would happen during his first press conference, “We won; they lost.”
The key thing to understand here is that the Cold War was first and foremost a conflict of ideas, the largest and most important of its kind in human history. All one needs to do to corroborate this is to take a look back at all the battlefields that don’t house the memories of dead American and Russian soldiers. We can (hopefully) reel off names like Normandy, Gettysburg, and Bunker Hill to remember the physical, bloody spots where braves American soldiers paid the ultimate price for our freedom in formal military wars. The fact that we can’t do the same for the Cold War conflict with Russia speaks to its being predominantly ideological in nature. There are many correlating reasons for this, and certainly there are tragic examples like Vietnam of where real blood was shed in the name of impeding Communism, but all of it eventually brings us back to the fact that the Cold War was a war of ideas.
Three ideas in particular, Rights, Religion, and Reaganomics, were the most divisive between the two sides and offer, I believe, the most insight into why one side won and the other lost. (And to think Russia didn’t even get a “Participation” award!)
The first idea that separated “us” from “them” was the question of rights. Namely, where do citizen’s rights come from? The United States declared in 1776 that it was self-evident our Creator endowed all men with their rights, and the power to govern over other men was a temporary loan from the people. The Soviets believed their rights came from the “collectively” run entity loosely termed the “State.” The State was run entirely by intellectual and military elites who proved just how “for the worker” they were by living like kings and ruling like tyrants. Citizen’s rights came from the State and power resided solely in the hands of the State. In return for your unquestioning loyalty and value as a worker (in whichever job the State decided you were suited for), you were given “free stuff” like health care, public transportation, bread, and land. This was assuming, of course, there were enough things like doctors who were willing to work for the same pay no matter how good (or bad) they were at their jobs.
The discussion of rights ties directly into another important ideological distinction between communism and American free market democracy: religion. Karl Marx based his entire philosophy of government and economy on the fact that there was no God, and since religion was the “opiate” of the masses, it was a threat to progress and the State’s ability to plan and control society. Our Founders obviously disagreed. Some have dismissed the significance of the “God gap” that existed between the Cold War adversaries, but I cannot imagine how this didn’t factor in. Forget the theological implications of a country that says there is no higher power, and think of it purely on a “freedom of ideas” level. More than 90% of Americans claim to believe in a God of some sort. Imagine living in a state where not only was that number reversed, but it was made illegal to discuss the matter in private, let alone public.
The third important idea we differed on was Reaganomics. (This is also commonly known as capitalism.) Capitalism is essentially a recognition and admission of the unfathomable complexity found within any type of economic system. Millions of people working, selling, buying, trading, and investing cannot be coerced into effective interactions that benefit society. It just isn’t possible. It is a pipe dream that assumes Man is a creature that will put aside any and all selfish ambitions (including concern for his or her own family above other people’s families) to work hard for the “common good” so long as he has a roof over his head, food on his plate, and time for leisurely pursuits. Problems arise, as they did in the USSR, when people begin to realize that not only do those material things fail to satisfy the human soul, but that they eventually aren’t even available in economies where the motivation to excel and produce has been replaced with an indifference-producing, umbilical cord-like dependency on the State.
As Steyn describes it: “The State gradually annexed all the responsibilities of adulthood – health care, child care, care of the elderly – to the point where it effectively severed its citizens from humanity’s primal instincts, not least the survival instinct. In the American context today, the federal ‘deficit’ isn’t the problem; it’s the government programs that cause the deficit. These programs would be wrong even if Bill Gates wrote a check to cover them each month. They corrode the citizen’s sense of self-reliance to a potentially fatal degree.”
Ronald Reagan often said, “Communism only works in heaven where they don’t need it, and hell where they already have it.” Capitalism is not only compatible with our nation’s concept of liberty and freedom; it is the logical, economic manifestation of it. And even if all the theoretical mumbo-jumbo supporting capitalism is too subtle for your liking, the proof, as they say, is in the pudding. We outspent, out innovated, and outlasted the Russian Bear. Our economy doubled while theirs bottomed out. Their economy was cumbersome and unproductive; ours was agile robust. We ate bread (and Big Macs) to fill our stomachs; they drank cheap vodka to numb the pain.
We told the Soviets for decades that giant federal bureaucracies simply do not work, and they told us that capitalist pigs would eventually be strangled and left for dead by their cherished “Invisible Hand.”
Just think of how wrong they were about us, and just how right we were about them. They had the empty shelves at the grocery store. They were the merciless imperialists whose very existence was predicated on the annexation of poorer, resource-rich, 3rd world countries. They were the ones whose people had lost hope and faith in their national ideology. We won; they lost.
But we find ourselves today in what can only be described as a “mental recession.” Our parents and grandparents witnessed the triumph of American ideas and ideals over those of both the National Socialists Party in Germany and the Community Party in Russia, yet we’re so unconvinced of (or oblivious to) these facts of history that we elect (and re-elect) politicians who vote and govern as if we should be embarrassed we were right.
In this life, we defeat any chance of true and sustained progress and happiness when we make the “better” the enemy of the “best.” Because we aren’t perfect as a nation and society is no excuse for proposing policies or supporting candidates that tell us to hedge our bets on ideologies that we’ve already proven ourselves don’t work.
It’s not one election, or one president, or even one session of Congress that will stem the riptide of collectivism currently threatening to drag us out to sea. It is “we the people” standing together, unwilling to flinch in the face of candidates and movements that promise us the same deceptively alluring trade off of freedom for mirage-like comfort the Soviets were supremely confident would succeed. Communism is the logical conclusion of Socialism, which is the logical conclusion of Liberalism.
But one of the toughest intellectual pills to swallow continues to be the American people’s insistence upon forgetting our own history. (Even recent history.)
How it is that any American over the age of 35 could have lived through any of the Cold War, seen the collapse of Communist Russia, witnessed the remarkable improvement in the quality of life for those previously living in USSR-controlled states, and could then turn around and vote for any enthusiastically pro-big government politician at any level of power in our own country is beyond me. It truly is mind-boggling. Pulitzer-prize winning columnist Charles Krauthammer would accuse such an American voter of being on a perpetual “vacation from history.”
Collectivist, state-controlled, bureaucratic quagmires of incompetence, the kind Moscow insisted for decades would eventually come to dominate every national capital around the globe, collapsed largely under the sheer weight of their own ineffectiveness. The pro-democratic, pro-capitalistic philosophy of the Western world, led most notably by the United States and Britain, rose to the challenge of staring down yet another brand of totalitarianism in Soviet Russia as they had done in Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.
The Cold War, a conflict primarily ideological and economic in nature, was for the hearts, minds and control of planet earth. The Communists told us these were the stakes, and the wise among us rightly believed them. In 1980, the year Ronald Reagan was elected our 40th president, the stark reality was a nuclear-armed Russian enemy that seemed to match us in size, scope, influence, and military might. By the end of 1991, the Berlin Wall had been toppled and our long-time, now one-time, Soviet adversary was being read his last rights.
The incredible fact that America actually won the Cold War, and just how unlikely that prospect previously had been to most journalists and professors during the 30 years leading up to the USSR’s defeat, is entirely lost on my generation. But people my age and younger at least have an excuse: we were like eight years old (or not yet born) when it all went down. To all of those over 35 who are voting for Obama in 2008, what is your excuse? How do you explain supporting a ticket that is proudly promising policies, tax rates, and welfare programs that would do Old Lenin’s heart proud?
In light of what history has to teach us about the West’s superiority in the realm of ideas and ideals, why are we so afraid to admit when something works? Has the Left’s jihad of political correctness and multiculturalism numbed our “objective reality” sensors? There is truth out there. There are better ways of doing things than others. Just ask the Kremlin. Free market democracy works, and works well. Bloated, nanny-state bureaucracy isn’t just inefficient, it is a terminal disease to any nation unfortunate (or foolish) enough to contract it.
In his 2006 magnum opus America Alone, distinguished author and columnist Mark Steyn describes what he believes were the two most important events of the last quarter of the 20th century: the collapse of Communism in the eastern bloc and the collapse of confidence in the West. For a few brief, fleeting moments in the early 1990’s the world marveled at the unexpected disintegration of Soviet Russia, and freedom-loving people everywhere rejoiced. But that was about it. People felt positive emotions for a while and then went back to their lives as if the previous four decades of hostility, conflict, ideological competition and proxy wars between the USSR and U.S. had never occurred. Less important still in the minds of most Americans and Western Europeans appeared to be an appreciation and understanding of how and why it was, as President Regan promised would happen during his first press conference, “We won; they lost.”
The key thing to understand here is that the Cold War was first and foremost a conflict of ideas, the largest and most important of its kind in human history. All one needs to do to corroborate this is to take a look back at all the battlefields that don’t house the memories of dead American and Russian soldiers. We can (hopefully) reel off names like Normandy, Gettysburg, and Bunker Hill to remember the physical, bloody spots where braves American soldiers paid the ultimate price for our freedom in formal military wars. The fact that we can’t do the same for the Cold War conflict with Russia speaks to its being predominantly ideological in nature. There are many correlating reasons for this, and certainly there are tragic examples like Vietnam of where real blood was shed in the name of impeding Communism, but all of it eventually brings us back to the fact that the Cold War was a war of ideas.
Three ideas in particular, Rights, Religion, and Reaganomics, were the most divisive between the two sides and offer, I believe, the most insight into why one side won and the other lost. (And to think Russia didn’t even get a “Participation” award!)
The first idea that separated “us” from “them” was the question of rights. Namely, where do citizen’s rights come from? The United States declared in 1776 that it was self-evident our Creator endowed all men with their rights, and the power to govern over other men was a temporary loan from the people. The Soviets believed their rights came from the “collectively” run entity loosely termed the “State.” The State was run entirely by intellectual and military elites who proved just how “for the worker” they were by living like kings and ruling like tyrants. Citizen’s rights came from the State and power resided solely in the hands of the State. In return for your unquestioning loyalty and value as a worker (in whichever job the State decided you were suited for), you were given “free stuff” like health care, public transportation, bread, and land. This was assuming, of course, there were enough things like doctors who were willing to work for the same pay no matter how good (or bad) they were at their jobs.
The discussion of rights ties directly into another important ideological distinction between communism and American free market democracy: religion. Karl Marx based his entire philosophy of government and economy on the fact that there was no God, and since religion was the “opiate” of the masses, it was a threat to progress and the State’s ability to plan and control society. Our Founders obviously disagreed. Some have dismissed the significance of the “God gap” that existed between the Cold War adversaries, but I cannot imagine how this didn’t factor in. Forget the theological implications of a country that says there is no higher power, and think of it purely on a “freedom of ideas” level. More than 90% of Americans claim to believe in a God of some sort. Imagine living in a state where not only was that number reversed, but it was made illegal to discuss the matter in private, let alone public.
The third important idea we differed on was Reaganomics. (This is also commonly known as capitalism.) Capitalism is essentially a recognition and admission of the unfathomable complexity found within any type of economic system. Millions of people working, selling, buying, trading, and investing cannot be coerced into effective interactions that benefit society. It just isn’t possible. It is a pipe dream that assumes Man is a creature that will put aside any and all selfish ambitions (including concern for his or her own family above other people’s families) to work hard for the “common good” so long as he has a roof over his head, food on his plate, and time for leisurely pursuits. Problems arise, as they did in the USSR, when people begin to realize that not only do those material things fail to satisfy the human soul, but that they eventually aren’t even available in economies where the motivation to excel and produce has been replaced with an indifference-producing, umbilical cord-like dependency on the State.
As Steyn describes it: “The State gradually annexed all the responsibilities of adulthood – health care, child care, care of the elderly – to the point where it effectively severed its citizens from humanity’s primal instincts, not least the survival instinct. In the American context today, the federal ‘deficit’ isn’t the problem; it’s the government programs that cause the deficit. These programs would be wrong even if Bill Gates wrote a check to cover them each month. They corrode the citizen’s sense of self-reliance to a potentially fatal degree.”
Ronald Reagan often said, “Communism only works in heaven where they don’t need it, and hell where they already have it.” Capitalism is not only compatible with our nation’s concept of liberty and freedom; it is the logical, economic manifestation of it. And even if all the theoretical mumbo-jumbo supporting capitalism is too subtle for your liking, the proof, as they say, is in the pudding. We outspent, out innovated, and outlasted the Russian Bear. Our economy doubled while theirs bottomed out. Their economy was cumbersome and unproductive; ours was agile robust. We ate bread (and Big Macs) to fill our stomachs; they drank cheap vodka to numb the pain.
We told the Soviets for decades that giant federal bureaucracies simply do not work, and they told us that capitalist pigs would eventually be strangled and left for dead by their cherished “Invisible Hand.”
Just think of how wrong they were about us, and just how right we were about them. They had the empty shelves at the grocery store. They were the merciless imperialists whose very existence was predicated on the annexation of poorer, resource-rich, 3rd world countries. They were the ones whose people had lost hope and faith in their national ideology. We won; they lost.
But we find ourselves today in what can only be described as a “mental recession.” Our parents and grandparents witnessed the triumph of American ideas and ideals over those of both the National Socialists Party in Germany and the Community Party in Russia, yet we’re so unconvinced of (or oblivious to) these facts of history that we elect (and re-elect) politicians who vote and govern as if we should be embarrassed we were right.
In this life, we defeat any chance of true and sustained progress and happiness when we make the “better” the enemy of the “best.” Because we aren’t perfect as a nation and society is no excuse for proposing policies or supporting candidates that tell us to hedge our bets on ideologies that we’ve already proven ourselves don’t work.
It’s not one election, or one president, or even one session of Congress that will stem the riptide of collectivism currently threatening to drag us out to sea. It is “we the people” standing together, unwilling to flinch in the face of candidates and movements that promise us the same deceptively alluring trade off of freedom for mirage-like comfort the Soviets were supremely confident would succeed. Communism is the logical conclusion of Socialism, which is the logical conclusion of Liberalism.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
The Return Of Obama's Destruction-Based Politics
The Return Of Obama's Chicago-Style Destruction-Based Politics
The sudden polling surge, representing as much as a 17 point bump, for John McCain has exposed the shady underbelly of the Obama Campaign. Senator Obama did not rise to power as a change candidate; he has never won an election in which his opponent has not suffered being personally destroyed and forced from the race; and it seems in the past two weeks that Obama is returning to his Chicago Political Machine roots.
Let me take you back to Senator Obama's first campaign, for the State Senate in Illinois. Obama was approached by then State Senator, Alice Palmer, a popular incumbent who had decided to run for Congress. Palmer approached Obama and encouraged him to run in her stead if she were to win. But Palmer didn't win her Federal Election bid and asked Obama to withdraw to allow her to retain her State Senate Position. According to Ricky Hendon, an Illinois State Senator, in an interview with CNN, "There's no way Barack could have beat Alice Palmer in that seat. It just wasn't going to happen. Alice was extremely popular." Obama, knowing that he could not win a battle against the Palmer turned to his friends and fellow attorneys for help. Obama and his attorneys noticed that the required petitions that Palmers campaign were sloppily completed. He challenged the petitions, won the challenge and Palmer was removed from the ballot. According to Hendon, "the people who she had depended on to do her petitions really did not do a good job." As Suzanne Malveaux would report, successfully challenging her signatures, Obama knocked Alice Palmer, a revered political figure, off the ballot, as well as all three other candidates. While Obama's campaign today promotes him as a different kind of politician, back then he was an avid student of Chicago-style politics." Four Politicians eliminated not by debate, not by the issues, but by political assassination.
Obama soon found out that the Illinois State Senate brought neither fame nor glory, and after an unsuccessful attempt at taking on a senior party member for his US House Seat, he turned back to his self-admitted mentor Emil Jones. Jones, upon hearing that Illinois Senator Peter Fitzgerald would not run for re-election, bragged to colleagues that he "was going to make himself a Senator" in Barack Obama. But Obama had a problem; he was unknown around the state and south of I-80 Illinois voted Republican. Jones, as President of the Senate used his political power to pressure fellow legislators to add Obama's name to hundreds of bills. According to Hendon, "He owes it all. He owes everything to President Jones." Malveaux would add during her Obama revealed special, "With help from on high, Obama got his name on hundreds of bills that he pushed through." Obama now had name recognition.
In his Senatorial run, Obama faced an extremely popular Democrat and Billionaire, Blair Hall, who led Obama nearly 2 to 1 in poll after poll. But something happened just prior to the primaries, SEALED Divorce Documents suddenly showed up at the footsteps of Chicago News Agencies. The divorce documents detailed allegations against Hall that he had physically abused his wife. Hall withdrew from the race and Obama, facing 7 other unknown and unfunded candidates walked away with the primary. Obama would now face off against a popular downstate Republican, Jack Ryan, in the November election.
Obama's ability to push Hall out of the race was bittersweet and the joy of his un-Democratic primary victory was short-lived. Obama would now find himself down by up to 18 points against his Republican rival. But once again, in the summer heat, reporters around Chicago would wake up to find previously SEALED Divorce Documents on the doorsteps. This time, the divorce documents of Ryan would uncover testimony that he and his ex-wife had frequently visited strip-clubs prior their divorce. Ryan, shocked and humiliated, would withdraw from the race. As of the announcement on July 15, 2004 that Obama would be the keynote speaker at the Democratic Convention, he had no opponent for the November Election.
Obama would eventually face competition in November. The Republican Party, reeling from a corrupt governor and embarrassed could not find any viable candidate willing to run for office. By August they had written off the election until an out-of-state Republican, Alan Keyes, offered to move to Illinois and run. Keyes campaign was a joke, primarily because he didn't even live in Illinois at the time. As a result, Obama trounced Keyes.
The moral of the story is simple; Obama has never faced a real candidate; or at least one who he couldn't push off the ballot. The Republican Party inadvertently nominated the best potential candidate to take on Obama. Despite their best efforts, the Obama campaign is finding out how hard it is too take on a candidate whose dirty laundry, even the little bit that McCain has, is already on the table. They have found it impossible to push McCain out and the best attempt at scandal they have uncovered is the nearly 25 year old Keating Five. To be honest, prior to this election, I didn't even know what the Keating Five was; I was too young, and most people I have talked too who are old enough to remember, have no clue either. It's almost embarrassing that Obama, the product of the Chicago Political Machine, can only uncover a 25 year old scandal that involved more Democrats than it did Republicans. The Keating 5 was a scandal, in which McCain was overwhelmingly exonerated and considered to have provided the key testimony in the case.
Palin was a blessing because the boost that her nomination has given McCain has forced Obama to show his true colors. He is no longer the candidate that transcends the politics of division and distraction; he is no longer the candidate who rises above partisanship; he is no longer the candidate who decried Hillary Clinton as too polarizing a figure. Obama says that we need to focus on issues, but on the campaign trail he can't overcome the 5 2 year old "Bridge to Nowhere' debate. Obama says we should focus on issues all the while sending a team of 30 investigators to Anchorage to sift through every detail of Sarah Palin's life; desperately hoping to uncover some sort of scandal. Obama has returned to his true self, a Power-Hungry product of the Chicago Political Machine, who will seek victory at any expense and will seek to politically and personally destroy his competition.
He will tell the press that there is no room for personal attacks on any candidate, but will do nothing to silence his supporters spreading hate and false rumors on his own websites blog. He will attack John McCain for "distorting his record", while premeditatedly injecting "pig in lipstick" remarks into stump speeches just days after Palin's infamous Hockey Mom remark.
The attacks on Palin are not over, and as pressure mounts the attacks will become more vicious, more pointed and will target her and her family. These are the politics Obama knows; just ask Alice Palmer, Bill Hall or Jack Ryan. So I will say it again: Obama has returned to his true self, a Power-Hungry product of the Chicago Political Machine, who will seek victory at any expense and will seek to politically and personally destroy his competition.
The sudden polling surge, representing as much as a 17 point bump, for John McCain has exposed the shady underbelly of the Obama Campaign. Senator Obama did not rise to power as a change candidate; he has never won an election in which his opponent has not suffered being personally destroyed and forced from the race; and it seems in the past two weeks that Obama is returning to his Chicago Political Machine roots.
Let me take you back to Senator Obama's first campaign, for the State Senate in Illinois. Obama was approached by then State Senator, Alice Palmer, a popular incumbent who had decided to run for Congress. Palmer approached Obama and encouraged him to run in her stead if she were to win. But Palmer didn't win her Federal Election bid and asked Obama to withdraw to allow her to retain her State Senate Position. According to Ricky Hendon, an Illinois State Senator, in an interview with CNN, "There's no way Barack could have beat Alice Palmer in that seat. It just wasn't going to happen. Alice was extremely popular." Obama, knowing that he could not win a battle against the Palmer turned to his friends and fellow attorneys for help. Obama and his attorneys noticed that the required petitions that Palmers campaign were sloppily completed. He challenged the petitions, won the challenge and Palmer was removed from the ballot. According to Hendon, "the people who she had depended on to do her petitions really did not do a good job." As Suzanne Malveaux would report, successfully challenging her signatures, Obama knocked Alice Palmer, a revered political figure, off the ballot, as well as all three other candidates. While Obama's campaign today promotes him as a different kind of politician, back then he was an avid student of Chicago-style politics." Four Politicians eliminated not by debate, not by the issues, but by political assassination.
Obama soon found out that the Illinois State Senate brought neither fame nor glory, and after an unsuccessful attempt at taking on a senior party member for his US House Seat, he turned back to his self-admitted mentor Emil Jones. Jones, upon hearing that Illinois Senator Peter Fitzgerald would not run for re-election, bragged to colleagues that he "was going to make himself a Senator" in Barack Obama. But Obama had a problem; he was unknown around the state and south of I-80 Illinois voted Republican. Jones, as President of the Senate used his political power to pressure fellow legislators to add Obama's name to hundreds of bills. According to Hendon, "He owes it all. He owes everything to President Jones." Malveaux would add during her Obama revealed special, "With help from on high, Obama got his name on hundreds of bills that he pushed through." Obama now had name recognition.
In his Senatorial run, Obama faced an extremely popular Democrat and Billionaire, Blair Hall, who led Obama nearly 2 to 1 in poll after poll. But something happened just prior to the primaries, SEALED Divorce Documents suddenly showed up at the footsteps of Chicago News Agencies. The divorce documents detailed allegations against Hall that he had physically abused his wife. Hall withdrew from the race and Obama, facing 7 other unknown and unfunded candidates walked away with the primary. Obama would now face off against a popular downstate Republican, Jack Ryan, in the November election.
Obama's ability to push Hall out of the race was bittersweet and the joy of his un-Democratic primary victory was short-lived. Obama would now find himself down by up to 18 points against his Republican rival. But once again, in the summer heat, reporters around Chicago would wake up to find previously SEALED Divorce Documents on the doorsteps. This time, the divorce documents of Ryan would uncover testimony that he and his ex-wife had frequently visited strip-clubs prior their divorce. Ryan, shocked and humiliated, would withdraw from the race. As of the announcement on July 15, 2004 that Obama would be the keynote speaker at the Democratic Convention, he had no opponent for the November Election.
Obama would eventually face competition in November. The Republican Party, reeling from a corrupt governor and embarrassed could not find any viable candidate willing to run for office. By August they had written off the election until an out-of-state Republican, Alan Keyes, offered to move to Illinois and run. Keyes campaign was a joke, primarily because he didn't even live in Illinois at the time. As a result, Obama trounced Keyes.
The moral of the story is simple; Obama has never faced a real candidate; or at least one who he couldn't push off the ballot. The Republican Party inadvertently nominated the best potential candidate to take on Obama. Despite their best efforts, the Obama campaign is finding out how hard it is too take on a candidate whose dirty laundry, even the little bit that McCain has, is already on the table. They have found it impossible to push McCain out and the best attempt at scandal they have uncovered is the nearly 25 year old Keating Five. To be honest, prior to this election, I didn't even know what the Keating Five was; I was too young, and most people I have talked too who are old enough to remember, have no clue either. It's almost embarrassing that Obama, the product of the Chicago Political Machine, can only uncover a 25 year old scandal that involved more Democrats than it did Republicans. The Keating 5 was a scandal, in which McCain was overwhelmingly exonerated and considered to have provided the key testimony in the case.
Palin was a blessing because the boost that her nomination has given McCain has forced Obama to show his true colors. He is no longer the candidate that transcends the politics of division and distraction; he is no longer the candidate who rises above partisanship; he is no longer the candidate who decried Hillary Clinton as too polarizing a figure. Obama says that we need to focus on issues, but on the campaign trail he can't overcome the 5 2 year old "Bridge to Nowhere' debate. Obama says we should focus on issues all the while sending a team of 30 investigators to Anchorage to sift through every detail of Sarah Palin's life; desperately hoping to uncover some sort of scandal. Obama has returned to his true self, a Power-Hungry product of the Chicago Political Machine, who will seek victory at any expense and will seek to politically and personally destroy his competition.
He will tell the press that there is no room for personal attacks on any candidate, but will do nothing to silence his supporters spreading hate and false rumors on his own websites blog. He will attack John McCain for "distorting his record", while premeditatedly injecting "pig in lipstick" remarks into stump speeches just days after Palin's infamous Hockey Mom remark.
The attacks on Palin are not over, and as pressure mounts the attacks will become more vicious, more pointed and will target her and her family. These are the politics Obama knows; just ask Alice Palmer, Bill Hall or Jack Ryan. So I will say it again: Obama has returned to his true self, a Power-Hungry product of the Chicago Political Machine, who will seek victory at any expense and will seek to politically and personally destroy his competition.
Obama's Big "Neighborliness" Lie
For nearly a year the press has reported Senator Obama's presidential fundraising as a grass-roots movement consisting of small donations. Yet, those who follow the money trail soon find out that less than 8% of Obama's donors are responsible for nearly 60% of his fundraising totals. Obama's 552 campaign bundlers made up of corporate attorneys and wall street executives are responsible for nearly 1/3 of his total fundraising, or around $130 million. Despite the facts, the MSM has done everything in their power to suppress the reality that Obama's fundraising is reliant upon big donors.
Senator Obama has a fundraising problem today as reality has set in that he might have made a mistake when he flipped on his pledge to take public financing. At the end of August, John McCain and the RNC had a nearly $20 million dollar advantage of cash on hand over that of Obama and the DNC. Obama's payroll is bloated, the largest paid campaign staff in political history that is sucking millions out of the coffers every month. By the end of the Republican Convention, McCain and the RNC had over $200 million of cash on hand with donations pouring in. The Obama campaign and the DNC is privately concerned that if the RNC would raise no more than their traditional $50 million per month in September and October, then the Obama campaign would have to raise over $100 million each month just to keep pace.
Following a week in which Senator Obama discussed his demand for a new 'neighborliness' in our tax code and regarding service, Obama hit the campaign trail over the past two days to attempt to blame Senator McCain and his 'rich lobbyist friends' for our countries financial woes. Obama painted McCain as out of touch and catering to the wealthiest of Americans. Yet, just hours after excoriating McCain, Obama turned to his friends to show some love and 'neighborliness' in helping his bid for the presidency.
Last night in Beverly Hills, Senator Obama hosted 300 guests at a Hollywood fundraiser, in which those 300 guests paid $28,500 each to attend the event. In layman's terms, that single event added $8.55 million dollars to Obama's coffers. In addition, more than 800 people attended the 'hotel' event last night, at a cost of $2,500 per person; adding an additional $1.25-$2 million dollars to Obama's campaign coffers. In the ultimate display of 'neighborliness', 800-1100 people donated a combined $10 million to the Obama campaign.
So while those in Iowa sit patiently by waiting for the passage of a Flood-Relief bill that was promised to them three months ago, and hundred-of-thousands sit in the dark and wait in 2-mile long lines for a ice and food, the Hollywood elite enjoyed a $28,500 per person evening of fun, food and entertainment with their favorite candidate.
Senator Obama has a fundraising problem today as reality has set in that he might have made a mistake when he flipped on his pledge to take public financing. At the end of August, John McCain and the RNC had a nearly $20 million dollar advantage of cash on hand over that of Obama and the DNC. Obama's payroll is bloated, the largest paid campaign staff in political history that is sucking millions out of the coffers every month. By the end of the Republican Convention, McCain and the RNC had over $200 million of cash on hand with donations pouring in. The Obama campaign and the DNC is privately concerned that if the RNC would raise no more than their traditional $50 million per month in September and October, then the Obama campaign would have to raise over $100 million each month just to keep pace.
Following a week in which Senator Obama discussed his demand for a new 'neighborliness' in our tax code and regarding service, Obama hit the campaign trail over the past two days to attempt to blame Senator McCain and his 'rich lobbyist friends' for our countries financial woes. Obama painted McCain as out of touch and catering to the wealthiest of Americans. Yet, just hours after excoriating McCain, Obama turned to his friends to show some love and 'neighborliness' in helping his bid for the presidency.
Last night in Beverly Hills, Senator Obama hosted 300 guests at a Hollywood fundraiser, in which those 300 guests paid $28,500 each to attend the event. In layman's terms, that single event added $8.55 million dollars to Obama's coffers. In addition, more than 800 people attended the 'hotel' event last night, at a cost of $2,500 per person; adding an additional $1.25-$2 million dollars to Obama's campaign coffers. In the ultimate display of 'neighborliness', 800-1100 people donated a combined $10 million to the Obama campaign.
So while those in Iowa sit patiently by waiting for the passage of a Flood-Relief bill that was promised to them three months ago, and hundred-of-thousands sit in the dark and wait in 2-mile long lines for a ice and food, the Hollywood elite enjoyed a $28,500 per person evening of fun, food and entertainment with their favorite candidate.
Obama's Sub-prime Buddy List:Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, and More
As Senator Obama and his Democratic colleagues attempt to tie this weeks financial meltdown to John McCain, perhaps we need to re-examine the candidate who has benefited the most from the very Wall Street Executives who have brought us this financial crisis. Obama’s campaign has undergone little scrutiny on his long-standing ties to the financial and banking community. In Obama’s speeches across the country he has repeatedly criticized the Bush administration for allowing “evil” subprime mortgage lenders and investment banks to lead this county into our current mortgage meltdown. Obama’s rhetoric on the mortgage crisis has been pointed and blunt, as stated on his own campaign website, “Obama will crack down on fraudulent brokers and lenders…Obama has been closely monitoring the subprime mortgage situation for years, and introduced comprehensive legislation over a year ago to fight mortgage fraud and protect consumers against abusive lending practices”.
Throughout the campaign season Obama has attacked Wall Street’s financial sector and run a campaign based largely upon his “good judgment”. The problem with Obama’s rhetoric rests in the fact that tucked away in his database of 2.5 million donors is the approximately 180,000 power brokers that have funded nearly 60% of his campaign. Included in this list are the more than 594 campaign bundlers including 15 lobbyist bundlers who have accounted for over $140 million in contributions. Included in this list are just 36 bundlers accounting for over $18 million dollars, with two bundlers raising over $1 million, and one over $2 million. These amounts are impressive considering that just 552 individuals have accounted for nearly 1/3 of his total campaign contributions. Of course determining the occupation can be tricky considering the Obama campaign lists nearly 100 bundlers as having unknown occupations, nearly 100 who are listed as "self-employed", and dozens of "homemakers" and "retired" individuals.
Among Obama's campaign contributors are many Lehman Brothers Executives, such as CEO Richard Fuld ($2,300), President Joseph Gregory ($4,600) and dozens of other top Lehman Executives. On June 19th, Lehman shareholders filed suit against Fuld and Gregory for the company’s exposure in the subprime market. In addition to dozens of Lehman executives are Obama's bundlers from Lehman Borthers who have raised top dollar for the campaign. Direct contributions from Lehman Brothers have exceeded $395,000 for Senator Obama.
John Rhea - (over $500,000) Co-Head of Lehman Bros. Global Investment Banking
Mark Gilbert - (over $500,000) Lehman Brothers Senior Executive
Christine Forester - (over $500,000) Lehman Brothers Senior Executive
Theodore Janulis – Bundler (over $100,000) & Lehman Brothers Head of Global Mortgages
Nadja Fidelia – Bundler (over $50,000) & Managing Director of Lehman Brothers
In San Antonia this past February Obama stated in a campaign speech, “To give you a sense of what that kind of lobbying gets you… the CEO of the largest subprime lender was promised a hundred-million-dollar severance package at a time when more than 2 million Americans were facing foreclosure, including nearly 14,000 right here in San Antonio..." Obama was most likely referring to an Angelo R. Mozillo, one of three CEO’s that were scheduled to appear to testify in front of a senate committee concerning their compensation and firms roles in the ongoing mortgage crisis. Stanley O’Neal, who received more than $161 million when he was ousted as the Chairman of Merrill Lynch, was one of the three CEO’s coming under scrutiny. In 2003, O’Neil donated to Senator Obama’s Senatorial campaign, followed up by a maximum $4,600 campaign contribution by he and his wife, Nancy Garvey, to the Obama Campaign. Ironically, the O’Neals tried to originally contribute $6,900 to the campaign only to have $2,300 returned. For those attuned to the financial sector, Stanley O'Neil will forever be remembered as the man at the helm while Merrill Lynch exposed themselves to tens of billions in subprime exposure.
The real problem for Obama extends well beyond his campaign bundlers that include several prominent lobby–representing attorney’s and executives such as Frank Clark, the CEO of Commonwealth Edison. Executives across the financial and investment industry have accounted for millions in campaign contributions.
Contributing to Obama’s cause is the more controversial Brad Morrice, the former CEO and President of the imploded subprime lender, New Century Financial. Morrice and his wife contributed the maximum $4,600 to Obama’s campaign last August.
Among other subprime contributors to Obama’s campaign are Steve Boland, a managing director at Countrywide, who donated the maximum last June. Andrew Beer the president of Wachovia’s troubled subprime lender Evergreen Investment Partners also maxed out his contribution to the Obama campaign; and Joseph Azrack, the president of Citigroup Property Investments along with dozens of Citi Executives have heavily contributed.
In 2007 Eric Schwartz, the co-head of Goldman-Sachs Global Asset Management abruptly stepped down from is position, fueling rumors that his resignation was tied to a crumbling Global Alpha Hedge Fund. The Fund’s mounting losses led to a -39% performance last year as the fund assets shrunk by 60%. Shwartz, an Obama bundler and contributor, has helped to raise over $100,000 for the Senator’s Campaign.
In 2007 Robert Wolf, the CEO of UBS Americas, helped the Obama campaign raise more than $500,000. That amount was equaled by Louis Susman, the Chairman of a Citibank Subsidiary.
Additional High Profile Financial Executives Include:
John W. Roberts - (over $500,000) Ariel Capital Management
Richard Leweke – Vice Chairman of Washington Mutual Card Services
Seth Waugh – CEO of Deutsche Bank
Charles Lewis – Vice Chairman of Merrill Lynch
Francisco Borges – Over $50,000 Chairman of Landmark Partners a private equity real estate firm.
Michael Froman – Over $200,000 Managing Director of Citigroup
David Heller – Over $200,000 Managing Director of Goldman Sachs
Bruce Heyman - Over $200,000 - Managing Director Goldman Sachs
J. Michael Schell – Over $200,000 Managing Director at Citigroup
Jim Torrey – Over $500,000 Founder of the Torrey Funds – Hedge Funds
Todd Williams – Over $50,000 Managing Director Goldman Sachs & The Real Estate Council
Louis Susman - Over $200,000 Citi Investment Banking
The listing of contributions flowing in from Financial Institutions through Senator Obama’s career is short of amazing. There are currently dozens upon dozens of Senior Vice Presidents, Managing Directors, and other top level executives from firms such as Lehman Brothers, Wachovia, Washington Mutual, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, UBS, Deutsche Bank, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley and other high profile Wall Street banks and funds mired in the mortgage meltdown.
Too many to list you can view all at White House For Sale
The ties between Obama and the industry are too expansive and raise the question, “Is Obama just another politician, saying what is politically expedient while sending an opposite message to his donors?”
The Center For Responsive Politics continues to call upon both campaigns to provide updated and full disclosure of the campaign bundlers; yet the Obama campaign in practicing its “change” politics, has failed to provide full disclosure of its donors.
What we do know is that the FEC requires full disclosure (Names, Employers, etc…) of individual contributions of more than $250. From aggregating information contained within FEC disclosures you can begin to form a picture of where the large contributions are coming from. According to The Center For Responsive Politics, of the 20 largest sources of campaign contributions to the Obama Campaign, 11 were Investment Banks or International Law firms directly tied to the financial industry.
During the primary cycle Obama attacked lobbyists and PAC’s going so far as to attempt to force the entire Democratic Party to refuse money from lobbyists and PAC’s in the general election. Obama has criticized PAC and Lobbyist money as having undue influence within Washington. But are any contributions from these organizations or individuals any less influential than the more the $350,000 (not including millions in bundled contributions) he has received (thru May 1st) from Sidley Austin LLP employees. Those who are familiar with Sidley Austin LLP understand that the firm is a large, international law firm with a large presence within the financial services and insurance industry. For instance, the firm was just recognized by Alpha Magazine as the top firm for Hedge Funds for the second year along with consistently ranking as a top corporate law firm. Obama has also accepted more than $340,000 from Skadden, Arp, et al... employees, a firm that was recently recognized as the “Best Corporate Law Firm In The United States” for the eighth consecutive year by Corporate Board Member. Skadden is another large Law firm specializing in practices related to investment banking and representing clients such as Merrill Lynch. In addition to the aforementioned law firms, Jones Day, Latham & Watkins, & Wilmerhale LLP are all large law firms and top 20 contributors to the Obama campaign. All three of these law firms also specialize in corporate law and ranking among the top ten “corporate law firms” by the Corporate Board Member.
Understand that I am not demonizing any of the companies or firms in this article, after all they are businesses and their employees have the right to contribute to campaigns. The issue is not with the companies whose executives have flocked to the open arms of the Obama campaign; rather the issue is the open arms of the Obama campaign. He has publicly demonized the investment banking and mortgage industry in front of crowds across the nation, yet has his campaign advisors accepting huge amounts of cash from the executives who run these companies and the attorney’s who represent them. The Obama campaign has demonized lobbyists, many of whom represent non-profit organizations and even State governments, all the while accepting millions in contributions from law firms who specialize in corporate representation. It’s lunacy.
Meanwhile back on Wall street the executives of Goldman Sachs have contributed more than $691,000 to the Obama campaign, not including any ancillary contributions collected by bundlers who are employed by Goldman Sachs. The Obama campaign will counter these numbers by citing that these are large companies that these are large companies and due to their 2.5 million donors you would expect large amounts of contributions from the employees of these companies. Yet, this argument is nothing more than manipulative political spin. As I stated earlier, the campaigns are only required to collect and report employment information for donors contributing more than $250 during the primary or general election cycles. These numbers disclosed by the campaign are how we are able to determine that less than 10% of his donors account for 60% of his campaign’s contributions. Thus, the aggregate totals for these companies represent the highly paid and executive level contributions made to the Obama campaign, not donations flowing from employee who contributed $10 or $20 dollars. Goldman Sachs employees are the largest aggregated contributors to the Obama campaign.
UBS and Citigroup, companies writing off billions of dollars in “subprime” related losses in the over the summer, are also among top ten contributors to the Obama campaign. Executives at these companies, such as Obama bundler and UBS Americas CEO Robert Wolf, have contributed over $850,000 to the Obama campaign.
Lehman Brothers executives have also flocked to the Obama camp, directly contributing over $395,000 to the Senator. Of course, the amount of direct contributions by these executives is overshadowed by the bundled contributions they have collected on his behalf. We know based upon disclosure from the Obama campaign that just 6 Lehman executives alone are responsible for more than $2,200,000 in bundled contributions. Unfortunately, the extent of bundled contributions are unknown since the Obama campaign has refused full disclosure (all we know is that certain bundlers raise over $500,000, the amount could have been far more).
These contributions were matched by Morgan Stanley and JP Morgan Chase executives who rounded out the Obama campaigns top twenty with over $750,000 in combined contributions. In all the Obama campaign has accepted more than $25 million in contributions from the “disclosed” employees of financial services, insurance, and real estate firms, the largest sector to contribute to the Obama campaign. Additionally, Obama’s second largest source of campaign funds has come from the nearly $24 million he has accepted from attorneys, many of which work at large corporate law firms like those listed above. Oh...by the way, make sure you look for their names on the bundler lists, you will be amazed. These numbers are more than twice the amount contributed by these sectors to the McCain campaign; increasing even more when you factor in the large contributions made by spouses and direct family members of these executives.
Again, I’m not demonizing any of these contributors or companies that have made these contributions; Senator Obama has done more than enough of “demonizing” on the campaign trail. The executives at these companies have earned their positions and have the right to pursue whatever political path they choose. The issues rests within the candidate who has run on a platform that has criticized the influence of corporate money in Washington politics, demonized financial services firms and their executives, demanded a halt to the undue influence of lobbyist and PAC money in Washington (only a position he recently embraced), and claimed that he will end the political greed that exists in Washington. Yet while proclaiming that he is the candidate with “good judgment” and that his campaign is a “movement”, Obama has had his hands deep in the pockets of the financial institutions and their legal representation that have contributed to the “mortgage meltdown” we are entrenched in today. I highly doubt that any of these executives who overwhelmingly favor Obama, are attempting to donate to a candidate that would damage their positions.
Obama can attempt to proclaim that he is not swayed by these contributions, yet if that were true then he would also not be swayed by lobbyist and PAC contributions.
Every story that surfaces concerning Senator Obama reeks with the stench of the long-corrupt Chicago political machine. Obama is part of this machine; his rise to power was due to this machine, and like the Chicago power brokers he is nothing more than a say anything, do anything candidate who once elected will break all campaign promises, act only to increase his own political power and then expect the long-term memory loss that the public has to kick-in by election day.
Throughout the campaign season Obama has attacked Wall Street’s financial sector and run a campaign based largely upon his “good judgment”. The problem with Obama’s rhetoric rests in the fact that tucked away in his database of 2.5 million donors is the approximately 180,000 power brokers that have funded nearly 60% of his campaign. Included in this list are the more than 594 campaign bundlers including 15 lobbyist bundlers who have accounted for over $140 million in contributions. Included in this list are just 36 bundlers accounting for over $18 million dollars, with two bundlers raising over $1 million, and one over $2 million. These amounts are impressive considering that just 552 individuals have accounted for nearly 1/3 of his total campaign contributions. Of course determining the occupation can be tricky considering the Obama campaign lists nearly 100 bundlers as having unknown occupations, nearly 100 who are listed as "self-employed", and dozens of "homemakers" and "retired" individuals.
Among Obama's campaign contributors are many Lehman Brothers Executives, such as CEO Richard Fuld ($2,300), President Joseph Gregory ($4,600) and dozens of other top Lehman Executives. On June 19th, Lehman shareholders filed suit against Fuld and Gregory for the company’s exposure in the subprime market. In addition to dozens of Lehman executives are Obama's bundlers from Lehman Borthers who have raised top dollar for the campaign. Direct contributions from Lehman Brothers have exceeded $395,000 for Senator Obama.
John Rhea - (over $500,000) Co-Head of Lehman Bros. Global Investment Banking
Mark Gilbert - (over $500,000) Lehman Brothers Senior Executive
Christine Forester - (over $500,000) Lehman Brothers Senior Executive
Theodore Janulis – Bundler (over $100,000) & Lehman Brothers Head of Global Mortgages
Nadja Fidelia – Bundler (over $50,000) & Managing Director of Lehman Brothers
In San Antonia this past February Obama stated in a campaign speech, “To give you a sense of what that kind of lobbying gets you… the CEO of the largest subprime lender was promised a hundred-million-dollar severance package at a time when more than 2 million Americans were facing foreclosure, including nearly 14,000 right here in San Antonio..." Obama was most likely referring to an Angelo R. Mozillo, one of three CEO’s that were scheduled to appear to testify in front of a senate committee concerning their compensation and firms roles in the ongoing mortgage crisis. Stanley O’Neal, who received more than $161 million when he was ousted as the Chairman of Merrill Lynch, was one of the three CEO’s coming under scrutiny. In 2003, O’Neil donated to Senator Obama’s Senatorial campaign, followed up by a maximum $4,600 campaign contribution by he and his wife, Nancy Garvey, to the Obama Campaign. Ironically, the O’Neals tried to originally contribute $6,900 to the campaign only to have $2,300 returned. For those attuned to the financial sector, Stanley O'Neil will forever be remembered as the man at the helm while Merrill Lynch exposed themselves to tens of billions in subprime exposure.
The real problem for Obama extends well beyond his campaign bundlers that include several prominent lobby–representing attorney’s and executives such as Frank Clark, the CEO of Commonwealth Edison. Executives across the financial and investment industry have accounted for millions in campaign contributions.
Contributing to Obama’s cause is the more controversial Brad Morrice, the former CEO and President of the imploded subprime lender, New Century Financial. Morrice and his wife contributed the maximum $4,600 to Obama’s campaign last August.
Among other subprime contributors to Obama’s campaign are Steve Boland, a managing director at Countrywide, who donated the maximum last June. Andrew Beer the president of Wachovia’s troubled subprime lender Evergreen Investment Partners also maxed out his contribution to the Obama campaign; and Joseph Azrack, the president of Citigroup Property Investments along with dozens of Citi Executives have heavily contributed.
In 2007 Eric Schwartz, the co-head of Goldman-Sachs Global Asset Management abruptly stepped down from is position, fueling rumors that his resignation was tied to a crumbling Global Alpha Hedge Fund. The Fund’s mounting losses led to a -39% performance last year as the fund assets shrunk by 60%. Shwartz, an Obama bundler and contributor, has helped to raise over $100,000 for the Senator’s Campaign.
In 2007 Robert Wolf, the CEO of UBS Americas, helped the Obama campaign raise more than $500,000. That amount was equaled by Louis Susman, the Chairman of a Citibank Subsidiary.
Additional High Profile Financial Executives Include:
John W. Roberts - (over $500,000) Ariel Capital Management
Richard Leweke – Vice Chairman of Washington Mutual Card Services
Seth Waugh – CEO of Deutsche Bank
Charles Lewis – Vice Chairman of Merrill Lynch
Francisco Borges – Over $50,000 Chairman of Landmark Partners a private equity real estate firm.
Michael Froman – Over $200,000 Managing Director of Citigroup
David Heller – Over $200,000 Managing Director of Goldman Sachs
Bruce Heyman - Over $200,000 - Managing Director Goldman Sachs
J. Michael Schell – Over $200,000 Managing Director at Citigroup
Jim Torrey – Over $500,000 Founder of the Torrey Funds – Hedge Funds
Todd Williams – Over $50,000 Managing Director Goldman Sachs & The Real Estate Council
Louis Susman - Over $200,000 Citi Investment Banking
The listing of contributions flowing in from Financial Institutions through Senator Obama’s career is short of amazing. There are currently dozens upon dozens of Senior Vice Presidents, Managing Directors, and other top level executives from firms such as Lehman Brothers, Wachovia, Washington Mutual, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, UBS, Deutsche Bank, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase, Morgan Stanley and other high profile Wall Street banks and funds mired in the mortgage meltdown.
Too many to list you can view all at White House For Sale
The ties between Obama and the industry are too expansive and raise the question, “Is Obama just another politician, saying what is politically expedient while sending an opposite message to his donors?”
The Center For Responsive Politics continues to call upon both campaigns to provide updated and full disclosure of the campaign bundlers; yet the Obama campaign in practicing its “change” politics, has failed to provide full disclosure of its donors.
What we do know is that the FEC requires full disclosure (Names, Employers, etc…) of individual contributions of more than $250. From aggregating information contained within FEC disclosures you can begin to form a picture of where the large contributions are coming from. According to The Center For Responsive Politics, of the 20 largest sources of campaign contributions to the Obama Campaign, 11 were Investment Banks or International Law firms directly tied to the financial industry.
During the primary cycle Obama attacked lobbyists and PAC’s going so far as to attempt to force the entire Democratic Party to refuse money from lobbyists and PAC’s in the general election. Obama has criticized PAC and Lobbyist money as having undue influence within Washington. But are any contributions from these organizations or individuals any less influential than the more the $350,000 (not including millions in bundled contributions) he has received (thru May 1st) from Sidley Austin LLP employees. Those who are familiar with Sidley Austin LLP understand that the firm is a large, international law firm with a large presence within the financial services and insurance industry. For instance, the firm was just recognized by Alpha Magazine as the top firm for Hedge Funds for the second year along with consistently ranking as a top corporate law firm. Obama has also accepted more than $340,000 from Skadden, Arp, et al... employees, a firm that was recently recognized as the “Best Corporate Law Firm In The United States” for the eighth consecutive year by Corporate Board Member. Skadden is another large Law firm specializing in practices related to investment banking and representing clients such as Merrill Lynch. In addition to the aforementioned law firms, Jones Day, Latham & Watkins, & Wilmerhale LLP are all large law firms and top 20 contributors to the Obama campaign. All three of these law firms also specialize in corporate law and ranking among the top ten “corporate law firms” by the Corporate Board Member.
Understand that I am not demonizing any of the companies or firms in this article, after all they are businesses and their employees have the right to contribute to campaigns. The issue is not with the companies whose executives have flocked to the open arms of the Obama campaign; rather the issue is the open arms of the Obama campaign. He has publicly demonized the investment banking and mortgage industry in front of crowds across the nation, yet has his campaign advisors accepting huge amounts of cash from the executives who run these companies and the attorney’s who represent them. The Obama campaign has demonized lobbyists, many of whom represent non-profit organizations and even State governments, all the while accepting millions in contributions from law firms who specialize in corporate representation. It’s lunacy.
Meanwhile back on Wall street the executives of Goldman Sachs have contributed more than $691,000 to the Obama campaign, not including any ancillary contributions collected by bundlers who are employed by Goldman Sachs. The Obama campaign will counter these numbers by citing that these are large companies that these are large companies and due to their 2.5 million donors you would expect large amounts of contributions from the employees of these companies. Yet, this argument is nothing more than manipulative political spin. As I stated earlier, the campaigns are only required to collect and report employment information for donors contributing more than $250 during the primary or general election cycles. These numbers disclosed by the campaign are how we are able to determine that less than 10% of his donors account for 60% of his campaign’s contributions. Thus, the aggregate totals for these companies represent the highly paid and executive level contributions made to the Obama campaign, not donations flowing from employee who contributed $10 or $20 dollars. Goldman Sachs employees are the largest aggregated contributors to the Obama campaign.
UBS and Citigroup, companies writing off billions of dollars in “subprime” related losses in the over the summer, are also among top ten contributors to the Obama campaign. Executives at these companies, such as Obama bundler and UBS Americas CEO Robert Wolf, have contributed over $850,000 to the Obama campaign.
Lehman Brothers executives have also flocked to the Obama camp, directly contributing over $395,000 to the Senator. Of course, the amount of direct contributions by these executives is overshadowed by the bundled contributions they have collected on his behalf. We know based upon disclosure from the Obama campaign that just 6 Lehman executives alone are responsible for more than $2,200,000 in bundled contributions. Unfortunately, the extent of bundled contributions are unknown since the Obama campaign has refused full disclosure (all we know is that certain bundlers raise over $500,000, the amount could have been far more).
These contributions were matched by Morgan Stanley and JP Morgan Chase executives who rounded out the Obama campaigns top twenty with over $750,000 in combined contributions. In all the Obama campaign has accepted more than $25 million in contributions from the “disclosed” employees of financial services, insurance, and real estate firms, the largest sector to contribute to the Obama campaign. Additionally, Obama’s second largest source of campaign funds has come from the nearly $24 million he has accepted from attorneys, many of which work at large corporate law firms like those listed above. Oh...by the way, make sure you look for their names on the bundler lists, you will be amazed. These numbers are more than twice the amount contributed by these sectors to the McCain campaign; increasing even more when you factor in the large contributions made by spouses and direct family members of these executives.
Again, I’m not demonizing any of these contributors or companies that have made these contributions; Senator Obama has done more than enough of “demonizing” on the campaign trail. The executives at these companies have earned their positions and have the right to pursue whatever political path they choose. The issues rests within the candidate who has run on a platform that has criticized the influence of corporate money in Washington politics, demonized financial services firms and their executives, demanded a halt to the undue influence of lobbyist and PAC money in Washington (only a position he recently embraced), and claimed that he will end the political greed that exists in Washington. Yet while proclaiming that he is the candidate with “good judgment” and that his campaign is a “movement”, Obama has had his hands deep in the pockets of the financial institutions and their legal representation that have contributed to the “mortgage meltdown” we are entrenched in today. I highly doubt that any of these executives who overwhelmingly favor Obama, are attempting to donate to a candidate that would damage their positions.
Obama can attempt to proclaim that he is not swayed by these contributions, yet if that were true then he would also not be swayed by lobbyist and PAC contributions.
Every story that surfaces concerning Senator Obama reeks with the stench of the long-corrupt Chicago political machine. Obama is part of this machine; his rise to power was due to this machine, and like the Chicago power brokers he is nothing more than a say anything, do anything candidate who once elected will break all campaign promises, act only to increase his own political power and then expect the long-term memory loss that the public has to kick-in by election day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
