My response to the Obama campaign's request to join other "just ordinary people" in the grassroots finance committee (or something like that):
"I'm sorry but I'm guess I'm not quite ordinary enough to give any more money to a candidate who voted for the FISA bill. I do hope he wins, I guess (I'll certainly vote for him), but in all good conscience I don't feel I can help finance such a cause." How I could have been so naive at my age I don't know, but to see Barack vote yes on another step toward a police state was just too much for me." What a disappointment. Silly me.
Yes, his winning might help a lot with ordinary people's lives (and yes I am an ordinary person), but to give the government the go-ahead to spy on the people... it just sticks in my craw and makes me think... oh what's the point? I just think the spying is at the root of the evil. (Not money, although that's pretty bad too but it's a whole other subject.) So, whatever happens, pasa.
2 comments:
Yes, Barack let us down with that one, and I agree we'll have to hold our noses while we vote, now. But the thing that your post reminds me of is Thomas Frank's What's the Matter With Kansas?. In it, he says that disaffected voters perceive that voting for either party makes no significant change to their lives/income, because they are both in the pockets of corporations... so conservatives have persuaded them that they may as well vote on the "values" that matter to them, for conscience sake.
With the FISA vote, I start asking myself, "Is Obama going to change anything, or is it lip service (again)?" What good is it electing Obama, if he folds like that for political expedience?
The only thing I can think of that might bring about better government is publicly funded federal elections: no money from corporations, no money from lobbyists. Obama's supposed to be the "no money from lobbyists" guy... but what good has that done, so far?
He walked away from the principle of federal funding, when he saw that he could outraise McCain 2 to 1. Fair enough -- it's a better chance to win. But where is the principle in his choice?
Edgar, I couldn't agree with you more. Thomas Frank is right, I'm sure, but why do people have to be passive and so dumb? If they got involved... oh well, it's clearly not that easy. So maybe an Obama victory doesn't matter. Except of course (people keep reminding me) we do have to think of the Supreme Court--I'm pretty sure he would make a big difference there. For the rest, I do wonder. As someone said, all these guys are rich, so if they're Democrats like Obama they win whoever wins. (If the Repugs win, those who are rich get lower taxes.) It's an interesting revelation and makes you really wonder why the Dems don't seem to campaign very effectively. Is it that they don't care enough about the outcome?
Post a Comment