No PAC Money Please

With the help of concerned Virginians, I am able to campaign for Congress, as a Democrat, to represent the 6th Congressional District of Virginia (www.SAM2008.com). Fourteen members of Congress have said they do not take any money from PACs. And I have decided to join them.

First, let me explain what PAC means:A PAC is defined as a group that raises and spends limited "hard" money contributions for the specific purpose of electing or defeating candidates. Organizations that raise soft money for issue advocacy may also set up a PAC. A PAC can contribute $5,000 to a candidate per election, and up to $15,000 a year to a national political party. PACs may receive up to $5,000 each from individuals, other PACs and party committees per year.

Let me say that giving money to political campaigns may be good. If you make that choice for yourself, rather than a PAC, I very much hope you will decide to contribute to my campaign. So what is the problem?

Well, the problem is that money from PACs has become a pervasive, disruptive, and even corrosive force in Washington. Excess is the problem. There are many things in the life of individuals, organizations, and communities that are harmless, perhaps even wholesome, in and of themselves. But there is nothing that can not be carried to excess and/or misused. And that is where we are with PAC contributions today because they are the method used by groups with unwholesome intentions.

Every PAC contribution comes with assurances it is intended for better government. And some of our finest legislators, from both parties, are among the happy recipients. But we now have a long experience of decisions taken in Washington that prove to be absurd and/or probably the result of corruption. Thus, I believe that it will be best if I am free to represent you in Congress after consultation primarily with you, my 6th District voters. Of course, there will be input from other sources, but not from those who routinely pay and then want to play.

Over $9,000,000,000,000

Our national debt has just recently surpassed $9 trillion and nearly $4 trillion of that came during the Bush administration.

In the first 225 years of our nation's existence we accumulated about $5 trillion in debt and in the past 6.5 years we have ADDED about $4 trillion!

Our debt has grown by 75% while Bush has been in office and our children will pay for this, quite literally. Talk about taking advantage of those who can't fight for themselves!

Letter To Me About Caring

Dear Sam,
As an 26 year old immigrant in this beautifull country, I can tell you that, as a Christian, it is one of the things that bother me the most here...the lack of respect for the children and the elderly.
When my mother died of ovarian cancer at the age of 50, I was only 20 and in college.
I stayed home to help my father raised my 5 younger sibblings until they were all out of the house.
My father passed away at my house many years later.
To this day, I do not have any regrets about the sacrifices my family had to make to accomodate his needs.
That is the strong fabric of any decent society and we are losing that battle very fast to the Chineese and many other nations.
Go for it and make enough noise about it to be heard...
LOUD and CLEAR.

Gerard Halloy Ph.D

Potential President with a Peace Prize?

Christopher Hitchens, the world-renowned and delightfully fluent -- albeit insufferably gruff -- journalist, contemplates an interesting possibility in the current issue of Slate: "If [Al] Gore wins the Nobel Peace Prize, will he run for President?" USA Today even wrote that Gore "hasn't ruled out another White House run."

We seem to have forgotten that the candidate list is not closed. We invest so much effort into researching and debating about the announced candidates that we completely ignore the potential candidates. I think that Al Gore, having won the popular vote before, stands a very good chance at winning the Democratic nomination even when entering the race so late. My reason for putting my own trust in Gore delves deep into political and environmental ideology, but I believe the average American will not vote for him (or anybody else, for that matter) based on his policies. The average American will vote on his image and their memories of his public life. This is actually a positive thing for Gore. Where many see Hillary as too animated, Obama as too young, and Edwards as too pretty to be the next President, they will most certainly go for Gore who is neither animated, nor young, nor pretty.

The more people see of our current Vice President, the more, I think, they yearn for our former, more reasonable and level-headed Vice President. Gore, despite his association with the Clinton administration and the stigma attached to that, is being remembered fondly by the American public as his stance on issues such as Iraq and global warming are being more widely-accepted, revealing Gore's amazing foresight. Also, Gore didn't shoot anyone in the face.

While I know what candidate out of the current Democratic frontrunners I currently like, I know that I will have to seriously rethink my vote if Al Gore enters the race.

- Reed Braden (These opinions are solely mine.)

♪ Why Can't We Be Friends? ♫

Leslie Wayne recently wrote in the New York Times' blog, The Caucus, about one of many hissy fits in the Democratic road to the White House.

September 18, 2007, 1:18 pm
Edwards and Clinton Tussle Over Lunch
By Leslie Wayne

Joe Trippi, the Edwards campaign Internet guru, is using a Senator Hillary Clinton security-themed fund-raiser taking place in Washington today to ratchet up the campaign’s increasingly negative attacks on her – and to solicit money from Edwards supporters, as well.

“Guess who’s really coming to lunch with Hillary?” the e-mail to Edwards supporters asks and then goes on to say that Mrs. Clinton’s $1,000-a-plate luncheon is a “poster child” for “what is wrong in Washington.”

The noontime fund-raiser, at the offices of Jones Day, a Washington law firm, features Mrs. Clinton and members of Congress holding one-hour sessions on a number of security-related issues – and people who pay the entry fee can attend. The event, Mr. Trippi said, shows how “too many in office have fallen under the spell of campaign money at any cost.”

Mr. Edwards has made attacks on lobbyists and the influence of special interest money one of his signature campaign issues, and has long criticized Mrs. Clinton for what Mr. Edwards claims are overly-cozy ties with Washington insiders. By contrast, he has positioned himself as a Washington outsider, not beholden to lobbyists or political action committees.

Still, the Edwards campaign is not above using the Clinton fund-raiser as a chance to do some money-raising of its own. As the email closes, Mr. Trippi tells supporters that: “You may not have $1,000,” but he asks Edwards supporters to donate, even in amounts as low as $25 and $100, and said this money will be “combined with the contributions of thousands of others who are replying to this email right now.”

Fund-raising aside, in the war of words, the Clinton campaign is not taking Mr. Trippi’s attacks lightly. In response, Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer told Politico.com: “Increasingly negative attacks against other Democrats aren’t going to end the war, deliver universal health care or turn John Edwards’ flagging campaign around.”

I like The Onion's version of this better:

Clinton Blasts Obama For Slamming Edwards Jab
September 12, 2007

WASHINGTON, DC—Dissent continued to plague the 2008 presidential campaign this week, as Sen. Hillary Clinton had harsh words for Sen. Barack Obama's recent criticism of blunt remarks made by former Sen. John Edwards over what he called "petty Democratic-party infighting."

"I am dismayed and outraged by my opponent's baseless accusations in response to my other opponent's crude mudslinging tactics, which were inappropriate and which the American people will not stand for," Clinton said, echoing the criticism of criticism that has become a key element of this race. "The sheer effrontery. Destructive. Barb. Vitriol."

Campaign observers speculate that Clinton's comments could provoke a strongly worded response.

I personally don't care how Clinton, Edwards, et al. earn their money as long as they keep it legal and as long as it gets us a responsible Democratic President in 2009. Rather than agreeing with Edwards' campaign in that Hillary's lunch is the poster child of what is wrong with America, I seem to think that Edwards' campaign's reaction is the poster child of what is wrong with politics. We're all Democrats here, and we're supposedly all sensible people. Can't we just get along?

When the day comes that one of our three Democratic frontmen (or woman) get the party's nomination and they choose a Vice President to run with them, I would love for them to choose one of the remaining two of our Hillary-Obama-Edwards trifecta. I like each of these candidates a lot, and I dislike a small, but equal amount of things that they have each said and done, but I would love to have any two of them in the White House at the same time. I fear with all of the negativity between candidates right now, this can never be possible. At the rate we are going now with our incessant arguing and mudslinging, the leaders of our party are burning so many bridges between themselves that they are fatally weakening our chances for a successful election.

I take dirty campaigning very seriously, and the Edwards-Clinton rivalry is very much weakening my likelihood of voting for either of them. If only we Democrats can stop behaving like... well... stubborn donkeys, we might be able to accomplish something for once.

- Reed Braden (These opinions are solely mine.)

Updating the Layout

Our blog will be undergoing some layout and design updates today. I apologise in advance for any unintended inconvenience.

Corruption: Congressional Pensions

(From Kathy, a concerned citizen)
As just one of the topics, we need to discuss the ability of congresspersons who have been convicted of a crime and are still allowed to receive the congressional pension. The subject of congressional pensions is a sore spot with me because congress was meant to be of the people, not a career in and of itself. Since they could not pass a bill to prevent their pals from receiving pensions after conviction, maybe we need as states to do it one at a time and get the message across to these people. Public service is great, but I really feel that they should not be getting greater benefits, and in most cases, MUCH greater benefits, than the people they represent. It immediately puts congressmen “out of touch” with the average person.