A question for Sen Clinton/Obama supporters.

[rhett o rick]

I am honestly curious, Clinton/Obama supporters, do you think either:

1) That your candidate will reduce corporatist influence in government, or

2) You don't think that issue is important?

PS: thought of a third possibility:

3) Your candidate will reduce corporatist influence but is keeping it secret until after they become president?

I am not trying to bait you but very curious how you can support a candidate that isn't committed to, what I consider the most significant issue, eliminating corporatist (read fascist) influence in government.

I tried this as a sub thread but got no Clinton/Obama supporter response.

[Occam Bandage]

1. I certainly do support fascism, as do Clinton supporters.

Nothing is as important to me as ensuring fascism.

[maddiejoan]

3. Finally

something we can agree on!

Gobama! Give'em hell, Hill!

yayyyyy Fascism!

[Orrex]

6. I would like to state for the record

that Occam Bandage is insufficiently fervent in supporting fascism.



I demand that something be done about Occam Bandage immediately.

[rhett o rick]

13. Clever way of avoiding answering the question. nm

[Occam Bandage]

14. Not clever. I'm pro-fascism, as is my candidate. Do you disagree?

[rhett o rick]

17. Do I agree you're a fascist? I have no idea. But I do know your candidate

talks a lot about change but doesn't mention repeal of the Patriot Act, or repeal of the MCA, or undoing NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO, or reestablishing habeas corpus, or enforcing FISA, closing guantanamo, etc. I hope I am wrong on this.

[Occam Bandage]

20. What you "know" mostly ain't so, I'm happy to say. You may find these interesting.

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060927-floor_statement_7/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/24/AR2007062401046.html
http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2007/12/17/statement-from-senator-obama-on-the-fisa-bill/
http://obama.senate.gov/press/061023-senator_obamas_6/ (particularly the NAFTA bit)
http://obama.senate.gov/news/050630-why_i_oppose_cafta/index.php

[rhett o rick]

25. I respectfully bow to your superior knowledge re. Obama and will reconsider my

position. My lack of research is evident and I wish to thank you for providing me with the links. My goal is not to attack Democratic candidates but to ensure that we chose the one that will help us in the battle against the corporatists neocon cabal.

I posted in a honest attempt to get to the core of the issues as I see them. I am terrified that we will nominate a candidate that will continue with the status quo.

Once again, thanks for the lesson.

[sandnsea]

2. Who passed ethics and lobbying legislation?

Why doesn't somebody post the actual records of every candidate on this issue.

[rhett o rick]

15. Yes that would be very good, but why don't they tell us that they will undo the damage done.

I.E. the Patriot Act, the MCA, NAFTA, CAFTA, WTO, habeas corpus, FISA, close guantanamo, etc. etc. instead of telling us they will work for "change".

[sandnsea]

31. They do

Obama has promised to end torture as US policy, restore habeas and close Guantanamo. He has spoken to improving the Patriot Act, and respecting the Constitution and FISA. I think they all have spoken to getting trade agreements, and I do trust John Edwards most on that subject. None have said they will end trade. We are going to have to organize as a global labor force and fight for rights for people all over the world. If we aren't lifting standards in China, it just continues to make it harder for us to maintain our standards here.

[rhett o rick]

21. But who has taken the most lobby money?? nm

[MH1]

4. Obama will reduce the influence of corporations by empowering citizens

through more open and transparent government practices, if not more directly.

I think reducing corporatist influence is a very challenging task and I don't think Edwards will live up to his rhetoric. I doubt that it would be possible for anyone to live up to Edwards' rhetoric.

With Obama I believe some steps will actually be accomplished, even if they are smaller steps than what Edwards is currently claiming to want. I do believe Obama will try harder to accomplish more of what I think is important, than either Clinton or Edwards ever would. But at least Clinton isn't promising what she has no intention or capability of delivering (on that score at least).

[rhett o rick]

18. I also would be surprised if Edwards lived up to his rhetoric but at least he is claiming to try. nm

[MH1]

26. My biggest problem with Edwards is that I don't believe him.

I don't trust him at all.

My second biggest problem with him is that I don't think his approach will work.

[frogcycle]

22. and Obama will live up to THIS rhetoric?

"by empowering citizens through more open and transparent government practices, if not more directly."

sounds like something from a sophomore civics class essay - that got a "C-"

so when they stop lying, cheating, spying, and hiding so much, I'll be "empowered?"

Oh goody; I can't wait.

[MH1]

24. Well, that's my own "rhetoric" because I was too lazy to look up Obama's exact words.

Open government is one of my core issues. Obama has raised it on several occasions, and already contributed tangibly by measures such as ethics reform legislation.

What, you don't think empowering citizens will help reduce the power of corporations? Then we disagree.

If you think empowering citizens will help, then surely you realize that there are specific tangible steps that can be taken to achieve that. Since it is not a direct attack on corporations but it IS an obvious step towards greater democracy, it will be hard to stop those steps once someone has the vision and courage to lead.

Unfortunately it seems like the other two in the "top 3" don't even have the vision.

[frogcycle]

30. I am all for empowering citizens

The problem is you cannot "empower" if you don't have the power to give. Obama cannot just be sworn in and then say "now people have power." Cleaning up corruption is a start, to be sure, but the power is firmly in the hands of the oligarchy now, and it has to be TAKEN from them in order to be given back to the people. People have no power in rigged elections. People have no power when their representatives are bought.

Edwards understands that, and the other two candidates don't, or else don't care.

[MH1]

33. Information is power.

Thus, the importance of open government.

I think Obama does understand about the oligarchy, but also recognizes the complexity of the issue.

Anyway right now, sleep is the power I need, so I have to leave it at that.

[frogcycle]

41. yeah, me too

i agree with the expression "information is power"

but it is a platitude in this case.

exposing some of the deviousness whereby the government has been anything BUT "of the people" is of course essential, and it will help, just as "discovery" helps in a lawsuit. But it will NOT fix anything. Saying "If you build it they will come" worked for a baseball movie, but won't work for dismantling the MACHINE we are up against. Obama sounds like Don Quixote.

[Adelante]

38. Does it empower citizens to have access to records of where their tax money is going?

Coburn and Obama Announce Launch of Website to Track Federal Spending
Thursday, December 13, 2007

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: Amy Brundage (Obama) or John Hart (Coburn)

Website Will Promote Transparency in How American Taypayer Dollars are Spent

WASHINGTON, D.C.– U.S. Senators Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-OK) and Barack Obama (D-IL) today applauded the Office of Management and Budget for launching ahead of schedule the web site www.USAspending.gov that will feature the most comprehensive searchable database of federal spending ever made available to the American public. The site is the product of legislation, the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (S. 2590), sponsored by Senators Coburn and Obama, that was signed into law last year.

“Today, we mark an important milestone on the path to greater government transparency,” Senator Obama said. “This site helps us to achieve a very simple and powerful vision: a vision that, in a democracy, people ought to know how their government is operating. This isn’t Democratic vision or a Republican vision. It’s a vision that rejects the idea that government actions and decisions should be kept secret.

“We can’t reduce waste, fraud and abuse without knowing how, where and why Federal money is flowing out the door,” Obama added. “This site will provide a window into the federal budget so all Americans can see how their tax dollars are being spent – how their nation’s resources are being used and obligated, where money is going as well as where it is not going. I thank Senator Coburn for his leadership on this effort and for all of the groups who have helped launch this website today.”

“I believe this act is the most important transparency measure passed by Congress since the Freedom of Information Act. I commend Clay Johnson and Jim Nussle at OMB for their tireless work in meeting the first stage of the website’s launch ahead of schedule. This site will help lift the veil of secrecy that covers so much of what happens in Washington and empower ordinary citizens, bloggers and reporters to hold their government accountable like never before. Democracy works when citizens have access to reliable information that can inform their choices,” Dr. Coburn said.

Key features of www.USAspending.gov include:

* A free, searchable website that will track approximately $1 trillion in federal grants, contracts, earmarks and loans.

* Near real-time updates of data concerning federal spending. Updates can be expected every two weeks instead of quarterly, as is the current practice for existing federal grants information.

* The opportunity for the users to post comments and provide feedback about the website in a public, online user community.

* For the first time, most government spending data will be searchable by contractor or grantee and by congressional district.

* For the first time, grant recipients will receive a unique identifier that will help users track recipients.

* In January 2009, the database will include searchable information about subcontracts and subgrants.

http://USAspending.gov

[frogcycle]

39. of course its a good step

and its why I am glad he's my senator

I hope he stays there and keeps it up

making grandiose promises is not nearly as valuable as rolling up your sleeves and doing the work

[MannyGoldstein]

5. Obama *Might* Reduce Corporatist Influence

It's inconceivable that Clinton would stop it - she has fed heartily at that trough for 20+ years.

As she says, "Lobbyists, whether you like it not, represent real Americans. They represent nurses, social workers, and yes, they represent corporations and they employ a lot of people." :crazy:

[Bodhi BloodWave]

11. If Obama gets his transparent and connected technology issue passed

I'd say that would make for quite a reduction in corporate influence since people could watch the meetings or review them later(which almost forces corps and others to deal more fairly)

[MH1]

12. It will take more than just that, but that is a necessary start.

From what I've seen of Obama, he seems to understand what is needed, at least to get a good start on the issue.

I don't trust someone (like Edwards) who acts like problems are black and white or easily solved, when I see them as complex and difficult. I think Obama recognizes the complexity and will tackle the problem intelligently.

And as noted downthread by a Clinton supporter, corporations are a necessary part of a capitalist system, and not inherently evil. I would say that generally speaking, corporations have excessive influence at this time, and that is a corrupting factor. But the answer isn't to do away with corporations completely, it's to diminish their influence.

[MannyGoldstein]

35. Put 'Em In A Cage

Lions aren't inherently evil either - but they need to be caged when near people. Like lions, it is in a corporation's nature to eviscerate people.

[JDPriestly]

7. Kicked

[Fredda Weinberg]

8. I suspect anyone who wants to eliminate anything. I studied chemistry

and know how hard it is to get anything pure. So, to end up with the result you want - start w/an equation.

We want a flatter inequality curve, more sharing of productivity gains w/labor, greater security for individuals and vulnerable families and a shared sense of burden that we'll all pull through hard times together and share the enjoyment of the reward.

That's what my candidate advocates so I'm comfortable w/what lies ahead and as she says, the hard work that needs to be done to make lives better. If that's the best we can do, so be it ... it's a good reason to live.

Any questions about the equations? See my tagline for details.

[patrice]

9. You forgot this question re triangulation with so-called "Independents" and cross-overs:

Do you usually enter negotiations with the competition by assuring them that they will get what they want?

[comradebillyboy]

10. I am a Hillary suopporter and to honestly answer

your questions
1 no
2 yes

for all of their amoral behavior, corporations are the main generators of wealth in a capitalist economic system. I would hope both Hillary and Obama would return to a reasonable level of regulation of corporate behavior. One cannot deny corporate influence or importance in our economic well being. So they have a legitimate place at the table and Obama or Hillary would be foolish to make them their enemy.

All rhetoric aside, both Clinton and Obama are moderate mainstream politicians. The best either can do is to restrain corporate excess to some degree. Neither are a serious threat to corporate interests, and both recognize they must work with big biz to actually get anything accomplished.

[annie1]

16. i think she won't go out of her way to reduce it but...

right now i feel like there are more important things to tackle at least immediately. and i know that sounds counter productive, but i think reducing corperate influence in general could take years and we dont' have years for many of the issues we're dealing with right now. sry, that's how i feel about it.

[rhett o rick]

19. Plez don't be sorry. What issues are on her list to fix? nm

[annie1]

32. Foreign relations, international conflict, greenhouse gasses/energy, education...

um.... i certainly don't think she's bought and paid for, and i think she will do a lot to REVERSE the type of corporate connections that Bush had enganged in, but i certainly don't think her agenda includes making sure corperate america doesn't not have influence.

[rhett o rick]

34. I hear you and am glad you are confident she will not let corporates influence her on

those important issues. I just wish she would make it clear how she stands on corporate influence.

[frogcycle]

28. I am sorry that's how you feel

Because the stranglehold the big business interests have on our government is THE issue. It is why we are engaged in illegal occupation of Iraq; it is why we won't sign kyoto; it is why we can't get single-payer healthcare; it is why we don't control the borders; it is why social security is threatened with privatization; it is why imports from China are not inspected...

No candidate who does not understand that has a chance in hell of addressing any of those issues.

There are precious few issues, domestic or international, that are not controlled by those big business interests. Maybe the abortion issue is one; refusal to fund stem cell research is another.

[rhett o rick]

40. Yes. nm

[OmahaBlueDog]

23. Since you asked

1) That your candidate will reduce corporatist influence in government, or

2) You don't think that issue is important?

3) Your candidate will reduce corporatist influence but is keeping it secret until after they become president?

1. Nope, 2. Not especially. Right now, I'm more interested in a) raw competence (something sorely lacking of late), b) the Supreme Court picks, c) Re-aligning the tax structure to pre-2001 levels, d) health care accessibility (for which corporate help may ultimately be desirable)

3.I would enjoy seeing Elliott Spitzer become AG and set him loose on the righties, but as for corporations, what I'd be more interested in is a truth-in-labeling act, requiring all publicly traded corps to disclose a)executive pay, b) outsourcing history, and c) violations of ethics, accounting, and environmental laws for the past 7 years. Then let the stockholders decide whether the pay is fair and equitable.

[rhett o rick]

27. I can't disagree with you desires, but how can those be realized if the

corporatists control the presidency?

[MH1]

29. Excellent post.

Although I disagree, I do think it is important, but I generally agree with your priorities - those items pretty much come first.

Competence and sanity would be a really nice thing to have for starters.

[flpoljunkie]

36. Yes, but Obama has made it clear Washington won't change if we citizens do not engage in the process

This is the key to change in Washington.

[frogcycle]

43. people with pitchforks storming the Bastille?

sure we need to be engaged - but there has to be an actual process in which to engage
This Bastille (corporate oligarchs) has a wide moat and big guns. Pitchforks won't do.

[End Of The Road]

37. It's not the most significant issue for me

Corporate involvement in government is as certain as the sun coming up. I DO think we need stricter ethics laws, but not solely for corporations. There needs to be tighter restrictions on 527s, and limits to the amount of influence that certain wealthy individuals can buy (DeVos family, e.g.), plus, of course, stringent rules on what an elected offical may accept. Remember, it takes two to tango.

I believe that Obama and Clinton will act ethically. This is in contrast to the current administration which has acted abysmally unethically - Halliburton, Blackwater, Jack Abramhoff, etc.

[frogcycle]

42. of course they will

as they go spiraling down the drain crying "ooooohhhh, noooooo" like Mr. Bill.

[frogcycle]

44. the naivete of Many Obama supporters blows me away

"empower the people" and it will all go away

What, people with pitchforks storming the Bastille? Sure we need many more people to be much more engaged - but there has to be an actual process in which to engage!

This Bastille (corporate oligarchs) has a wide moat and big guns. Pitchforks won't do.



The naivete of Obama's platitudes and the sycophants who recite them just blows me away. Were they all educated by Bert and Ernie? Reciting the new letter they learned on this morning's episode?

A lot of Clinton folk are similar.

They seem to think they can click their heels three times and say 'there's no place like home' and the flying monkeys will just leave them alone.

[rhett o rick]

45. So who do you say is better? nm

[frogcycle]

46. of those two? tossup

Clinton MIGHT be a better fighter if she chose to fight, but she chooses to compromise

I don't get why people have so much faith in either of them