Friday's Odds and Ends

This post originally appeared in October 2008, but it could apply to today's political race with just a few name changes. It is either incredibly sad or incredibly funny that history just keeps repeating and repeating and repeating....

Let's All Take a Break

The latest political news has Democratic Presidential Candidate Barack Obama declining public funding for his campaign. He says because of problems with the system, but some political analysts say the reason has more to do with the fact that by declining to participate in public funding, Obama can raise double the $85 million that is the most allowed in the public funding system.

$170 million dollars on a political campaign?

Oh, wait. That is only part of the total to be spent between now and November because on the Republican side, John McCain will raise at least $85 million. So at a minimum, $255 million is going to be spent buying votes. I don't know what you think, but I think that is obscene, especially because that is on top of the millions that have already been spent on the primaries.

I briefly thought I would like to know what the total is that all candidates spent since the primaries began, but decided my blood pressure is better off not knowing.

Here's a novel idea. Why don't we all take a break from politics. Gosh, it's not like we don't know everything we need to know about these candidates after years of the primary campaign.

Okay, it was only one year, but it felt like twenty.

The candidates could take a two month break and rest up for the last big push in September and October. And instead of wasting $255 million dollars, maybe each candidate spends about $10 million in those two months on national advertising.

And in those ads, they can tell us what they are going to do about key issues like the war in Iraq, the budget, health care, global warming, and revamping the political system so it doesn't pander to special interest.

It was once said that anyone could grow up to be president of the United States. Maybe that was true in the late 1800's, but not any more. You have to grow up to be incredibly rich first.

Calling for a true Statesman

One of my favorite political columnists, Froma Harrop, who writes for the Providence Journal, had a piece in the Dallas Morning News recently. In that piece she laid down the gauntlet, "Is there anyone in Washington who regards governing as a means to accomplish anything other than win the sterile game of Democrats versus Republicans? Every day, American soldiers risk their lives for their country, but people in Congress won't even risk their jobs to pass legislation essential to the nation's economic future."

I stopped and read that several times. That's what I do when I find something I think is particularly thought provoking. Then I read it to my husband who agreed that it was a good challenge. My cat didn't seem to care.

A little later in her column Froma pointed out that there are one or two exceptions to the folks who won't risk a politcal future for the good of the people. But out of a House of 435 members and 100 senators, it would be nice if there were more than one or two noble statesmen in the crowd.

I think all politicians should be forced to watch Mr. Smith Goes to Washington and take notes. Once in office, a congressman or senator, or governor, or president should be focused on governing, not ratcheting up political points. If they take an oath to serve the people, they ought to be serving the people, not the party they belong to.

Are we so deep into the current political system that we can't dig our way out?