The Democratic Party is struggling to pay for all that it wants to during this election.
click here reports that the DNC not only failed “to meet expectations in 2006”, but “it is lagging far behind this [election] cycle, too.” And goes on to detail the predicament:
“To date, the DNC has raised only about half of what the RNC has pulled in. This is about where the two parties stood back in 2004 - and the DNC was only able to match the RNC by the end of the year because of the $41 million the Kerry campaign pumped into its coffers. What is more, the DNC has an even bigger problem with cash on hand. As of June 1, 2008 - it had just under $4 million in the bank. At the same point in the 2004 cycle, it had $49.8 million in available funds. All in all, the DNC is in weaker financial shape now than it was at this point in 2004, when it was still weaker than the RNC.”
On July 6th, 2008, the New York Times reported that the DNC was 11 million short of the 40.6 million dollars needed for the Democratic National Convention, which now includes an event at Invesco Field.
Amidst all this mess, the Democratic Party in the past months has continued to fund war and occupation in Iraq, helped legalize warrantless spying, refused to pursue impeachment, and opted to allow the Bush administration to build up for an attack on Iran, continue policies of torture, distort information on the state of our economy, and stall real projects such as wind and solar projects that might truly put a dent in our energy crisis.
Obama has capitulated further and further to the right and progressives have allowed him to do so because they think it’s what a Democratic nominee has to do in an election (this despite his previous claims that he is campaigning to change politics). He’s become an AIPAC president, a person who publicly appears to misunderstand the Constitution greatly, and refused public financing. And he has agreed to help Clinton pay off her millions of dollars of debt from her failed presidential campaign.
Why should we have to pay for a politician’s failure to keep track of his or her finances? Why should money that could be going to really reshape and restructure this country be going to Clinton? Why must we support this con job, Mr. Obama, especially when Bill could just pay it off with all the money he made from his speaking engagements and his autobiographical epic, “My Life?”
I don’t know how you are doing in this economy, but I refuse to help the DNC or Obama finance an election refusing to address so many key issues in America that are making it more and more difficult to stay afloat. And I especially refuse to help pay off Clinton’s campaign debt.
I have become more and more convinced that the only way we are going to slow this runaway train is if we start to adhere to the principles and laws that founded this nation and if we start to seriously emulate those leaders who possess the courage and integrity to say and do what they say they will do.
Now, I concede our Founding Fathers had many setbacks. Many of the words in the documents that create the structures and laws that define this country had double meaning intentionally. Many had hidden meanings. But, I believe the words that ultimately ended up on paper, if good enough for our Founding Fathers, were and still are good enough for the governance of all people in America and therefore, should be extended to all people---even those who do not live in America.
So, why do Americans allow the politicians that create the policies or laws that define and control their very lives put politics before the enforcement and adherence to the laws of this nation? Why do Americans allow leaders to propagate this idea that upholding the nation’s Constitution and its amendments can be sacrificed and exchanged for political expediency?
I believe Americans are still divided over whether or not past Bush policies, laws, or powers expanded have made this country safer. A NY Times poll from last year showed that fifty-six percent believed we were not prepared for the next terrorist attack. Forty-nine percent believed we were safer and twenty-six percent believed they had no effect.
I also think a lot of Americans’ perceptions are conflated and infected by many of the media’s storylines and assumptions that progressive and liberal bloggers fight with their writing on a daily basis. For example, I am finding it more reasonable lately to suggest that Americans were not voting Democrat overwhelmingly in 2006 because they were becoming “anti-war” but because they lost faith in the Republican majority’s ability to run this war.
Let’s not discount the possibility that the energy crisis, food crisis, housing crisis, etc. are all eating away at the populace’s ability to challenge the powers that be. That job is becoming more valuable as each day passes and could be making it harder for Americans who want to organize to organize.
And, unfortunately, I also believe Americans are divided over whether or not Congress and the Bush administration must follow the Constitution. This assumption is made based on the fact that we have not impeached and removed Bush and Cheney from office yet. A fear of being seen as pursuing partisan endeavors or revenge within the Democratic Party and its base has greatly affected how we preserve this nation from the Bush administration’s reworking of our Constitution so that he can have unchecked power. Many also do not understand impeachment and myths are floating around in their brain about whether it is worth it or not.
The waters have also been muddied enough to create doubt in Americans' minds over whether or not crimes or violations of the Constitution have been committed in the past seven to eight years.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
