Senator Barack Obama would like to raise general election money now, and give it back later, under one circumstance; each candidate must agree to use only funds from the Presidential Election Campaign Fund. The Federal Election Committee will decide whether or not Senator Obama's plan is feasible.
This story illustrates one of the major problems facing the Presidential Election Campaign Fund. Fundraising begins years before the candidates will be chosen, and this leads to the predicament facing Senator Obama: a decision cannot be made as to public financing until both parties have agreed to the terms. Both parties cannot agree if we do not know who the candidates are.
On the surface, Senator Obama's plan seems to be a possible resolution to the Federal Election Campaign Fund conundrum. Raise money now, give it back later. It is not only a solution but an act that could secure the use of fair campaign contributions.
Say Obama raises ten million dollars now, with the promise to repay if the Republican candidate agrees to use FECF funds. It would be an awful decision for the Republican candidate should he or she decide not to accept FECF funds. That candidate would be solely responsible for thousands of people not getting their money back. The original contributors obviously supported the Democratic candidate, but this act could effect the mysterious "swing voters."
This would not provide Senator Obama with an unfair advantage, but it would be a major step forward in campaign finance reform.
I have to agree with Liberal Oasis on this one. This whole nonbinding resolution thing is getting out of control. It is time to express the Dems opinion on the "surge" plan to the American public, and move on. Whether or not Congress achieves bipartisan support upon the matter is moot.
Politicians, we get the point, lets get back to work.
I decided to see what O'Reilly was "spinning" today, and I followed a link to an article written by William M. Arkin of the Washington Post. Apparently he is quite discomforted by some comments from members of the US military. These comments reflected a misguided view, that those who do not support the war have an inherent dislike for the troops.
Arkin is unwise in believing that members of the military work for the American people. Soldiers, Airmen, and Marines work for the government. The government tells them what to do and where to do it. Presently, the decisions made by our government are not mimicking the sentiments of the majority of US citizens. I cannot say it enough; the troops are not to be lamed for the problems in Iraq.
Each side of this story is mistaken; Arkin for expecting the troops to support the citizens of the US, and the soldiers for thinking the citizens must support the war in order to support them.
Arkin went over the line by referring to the troops as mercenaries, for inferring that problems in Iraq are related to embarrassing situations involving the members of the military, by envisioning a false sense of prosperity for those serving, and ultimately by belittling the horrors facing the men and women serving in Iraq.
Arkin later implied that his article was successful in igniting the passion of others, albeit at the expense of pain in him and his readers. He does not apologize for his remarks, nor does he offer an explanation.
Iraq has been the topic of intense debate for many moons. It was only a mater of time before it turned ugly. I hope we can learn from our past, and strive for progress in our future.
Through all this, we must never forget that we are all entitled to opinions. It is this very freedom that makes our nation great. I hold no ill will for anyone who submits an honest opinion, no matter how imprudent.
"One thing I don't like is when people back home say they support the troops, but they don't support the war. If they're going to support us, support us all the way."
-Staff Sergeant Manuel Sahagun
Do sentiments like these stem from sheer ignorance, or are they products of psychological disorders? I may be over reacting a bit here, but it seems blatantly obvious. Political opinions, i.e. feelings against the war, are in no way connected with your amount of support for the troops.
Members of the military act according to orders passed on by superiors. These orders may or may not equate with popular social views. This lack of agreement is a byproduct of a functioning democratic society.
I do not support the war because I possess a certain set of political beliefs which lead me to believe that a war in Iraq is wrong. These beliefs sprung from decisions made by prominent US decision makers, not troops. My beliefs happen to echo that of many US citizens. Now, had the actions of soldiers been the basis of my beliefs (like the a-hole author of this article) I could be properly labeled as anti-troop, but at this point not necessarily anti-war. My point? Anti-war and Anti-troop are two separate entities.
