With most districts being “safe” for one party, the Political leadership, not the citizens, control our government. In most districts, we have One Party Rule, and sham elections.
While it would be messy to have free minded representatives (witness the Republican Party leadership’s issues with Tea Party members) we will not have a true Democracy as long as the leaders, and not the citizens, have control over the elected officials. We will not have compromise, or progress, as long as being “primaried” is the threat used by the Party Whip, to keep elected officials in line.
I will run again this coming year to ALLOW for Democratic choice. The Party will give us Barbara Lee again, and will endorse her, as they did Pete Stark, because she stays in line. The Party leaders will not welcome my offering choice. They do not want someone who might vote independently.
As long as Barbara remains under control, like a good party slave, they will not “primary” her. As long as they do not “primary” her, she will be safely reelected if no other Democrat is available for citizens to choose.
In all “safe districts” unless some free Democrat offers to run against the Party leadership’s wishes, the citizens of the district will not have any choice, but to accept the Party chosen, Party Leadership elected, candidate.
That is not the democracy I want my fellow citizens to have put upon them. I want them to have choice, and so I will offer choice, even though the odds of being elected are like the odds of winning the lottery. The Party has the money to support their obedient slave, and will reward obedience, with a “clear path” in the primary, and sure election in the fall.
The strongest campaign finance reform that I can think of, will never pass either house of the Congress because it would be so disruptive to the buying and selling of power.
Here is my idea: Eliminate the ability of any campaign to transfer funds out of the campaign or spend it on any item, or purpose not directly related to the candidate, or initiative the funds were raise to support. Candidates and Political Action Committees, would have to spend, not transfer funds, and be accountable for what they spent the funds to buy.
Nancy Pelosi should never need to raise money, as she is in a safe district and has lots of money on hand. However she, and most of the leadership in both parties, work tirelessly to raise money in their campaign war chests, so that they can transfer it to other candidates and buy their political support.
In my County, my state treasurer transferred nearly a million dollars to buy his wife a seat on the county board of supervisors. The campaign money was given to him, for his campaign, not hers.
If the use or transfer of funds from one campaign to another became an income tax event for the candidate, they would think harder about the transfer. Campaign funds are exempt from taxation, when used for legitimate reasons. Jessie Jackson Jr was just charged with fraud for using campaign funds for personal uses. If the use of campaign funds to buy influence, through transfer, or use for others, were also treated the same, elected candidates would have far less need to raise money and could focus on solving problems, instead of seeking to buy power.
That’s what I’m thinking tonight.
Listening to the Progressives from my party, in their “righteous anger” over guns being used to kill children, and you would think that they want to protect children, even if they had to tread on the Bill of Rights a bit to do so. To those with political agendas, protecting the children should come at any cost, even adults surrendering their constitutional rights. But then, with the next breath, they advocate burying children in the burden and misery of debt, so that adults can have government “charity rights”.
How odd? They would weaken the Bill of Rights, but at the same time create entitlements rights that have not been adopted by the Congress and the States.
I wish there was enough integrity in Washington and the State Houses, to say, what they really mean, that politics, not righteousness, rules their decision making.
It would be grand to have a President, or leader of the Party, be consistent to a principled position, instead of to a political one.
That’s what I’m thinking tonight.
Knowing that they can’t avoid European style blowback from doing the right thing, they will allow us to go over the cliff, and try to blame the Republicans for not caving on a tax the 2% only solution.
If they really think that a tax the 2% only solution will work, they should offer to resign if the Republicans give them what they want, and both unemployment, and the deficit go up as the Republican predict.
They will not make that offer, because they know that the Republicans are right, a tax the 2% only solution will not solve the problem, it will worsen the problem.
Barack and Joe need to take the lead to cut entitlements, so that we can avoid the European like mess. It is the natural outcome of the government usurping religious responsiblity, and creating public entitlements that exceed the contributions made into the system.
I hope there are enough honest Democrats in Washington D.C. who love the country, more than the Party, and will find the middle ground to do the right thing, and stop buying reelection with my grandchildren’s income, (aka national debt).
May cooperation mean both sides moving toward each other for our common good, and the preservation of the American Dream.
The USA models that keep us the land of promise, and hope for the world, must be preserved. We do not want to become more like Europe, we need to avoid their pitfall of merged religion and state, and social programs that lead to bankruptcy.
“The American people understand that we’re going to have differences and disagreements in the months to come. They get that,” Obama said. “But on Tuesday, they said loud and clear that they won’t tolerate dysfunction, they won’t tolerate politicians who view compromise as a dirty word—not when so many Americans are still out of work.
“What the American people are looking for is cooperation, they’re looking for consensus, they’re looking for common sense. Most of all they want action,” the president said. “I intend to deliver for them in my second term, and I expect to find willing partners in both parties to make that happen.
“So let’s get to work.”
Congratulations to Eric Swalwell for completing the victory over, out of touch, Pete Stark.
Two years ago I gave the Democrats in the district the first opportunity to show their desire to get a new Democrat to represent them in D.C.
With only a name on the ballot, and no money, or endorsements, they gave me 16% of the primary vote.
That result, plus the new top two primary, created the opportunity for some other Democrat (Eric Swalwell) to challenge Pete in the newly redrawn CA-15th Congressional district. Thankfully Eric had the courage to withstand the political party pressure to “let Pete stay in power”.
Eric demonstrated what I believe, representation, not power, is the point of being a member of the House of Representatives. Pete, and the Party leadership support of him was about power, not representation.
Pete has not cared to represent the citizens of his district for years. I am glad for the investment I made two years ago, if in some small way it has led to more representation, and less politics.
Congratulations Eric on finishing what I began.
Justin Jelincic, resident of the new CA-13th Congressional district.
If only we had someone who spoke from his heart and head instead of from a telepromter.
When the party want incumbent power, and not the best candidate, we get the retreaded efforts. The party is not well served but worse the American people are not well served .
just what I was thinking as I read blog posts today.