This is a fun story I saw this on the Internet on Drudge.
One of the biggest sources of political donations to Hillary Rodham Clinton is a tiny, lime-green bungalow that lies under the flight path from San Francisco International Airport.
Six members of the Paw family, each listing the house at 41 Shelbourne Ave. as their residence, have donated a combined $45,000 to the Democratic senator from New York since 2005, for her presidential campaign, her Senate re-election last year and her political action committee. In all, the six Paws have donated a total of $200,000 to Democratic candidates since 2005, election records show.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB118826947048110677.html?mod=hpp_us_whats...
My gut tells me that she is fatally flawed with the women voter, doesn't sleep in the same room as her husband, and is running for pure power.
Rather see any of the other candidates do something, partically the conservatives (don't want to see the Bush Tax cuts expire, partically the child tax credit and marriage penalty relief!!)!
judge people based on their house. Actually, some of the more well off people I know live in modest homes and drive older cars (paid off), and many I know who are in debt up to their eyeballs live in sub-division mini-castles and drive a new car every two years. Which may explain why they're in debt.
As is usual with anything close to the Clintons, this is beginning to stink. No surprise there.
It turns out that Norman Hsu, one of Hillary's top fund raisers who is mentioned in the original story (as well as another story today), has been a fugitive from justice "in plain sight" for 15 years. I guess the long arm of the law isn't long enough to reach him in NYC.
The only way to shake things up is an independent ticket! The D's and R's know the system and the populace does not. Knowledge of the system gives power and why would they worry about how to fix it if it is broken? It seems to me both sides are too busy figuring out either how to use the system to their advantage or how to legally get around it.
Ha! She has the older liberal women who want to see a woman prez before they die, and the younger women as well-again, just because she has a vagina, but then longing for/swooning over slick Willie accounts for some of it too-my niece just turned 18, and knows ZERO about politics-she is registering to vote for the hildebeast.
http://s21.photobucket.com/albums/b251/Foolkiller/?action=view¤t=S...
----------------------
BRING THE TROOPS HOME-NOW!
_________________
"They keep talking about drafting a constitution for Iraq.Why don't we give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys, and we're not using it any more".
Publicly finance campaigns!
+1
Hell, +100
This is the way to do it. The Supreme Court decision that determined that money is protected as free speech, along with their interpretations of corporate personhood, are two of the most tragic rulings in our nations brief history.
Money is a cancer on our democracy. We need to cut that cancer out and save what we can before we lose everything.
"By the people" and "For the people" will both fall into place once we can finally, again, bring into power a government OF the people. Many on the right of the spectrum cherish their gun rights and point to the intractable wisdom of the founding fathers. It pains me that many of those same people easily forget parts of that wisdom that they no longer agree with. It was their intent that the "peoples house" be filled with average, hard working Americans. Those who have built their adult lives as farmers and fisherman, bankers and blacksmiths, professionals, NOT Professional Politcians.
Government is far too complex to imagine, as they did, that a farmer will be a congressmen for 6 months then return to tend his fields. But we can still apply the SPIRIT of their wisdom. We can still elect ordinary Americans to represent us in Washington. The only barrier that stands in the way is MONEY.
By embracing public financing, we can guarantee that an incumbent can't use quid-pro-quo to outspend an opponent 5:1. By embracing public financing, we can guarantee a fair fight, based on ideas and not dollars, based on answers to our questions not ads on our televisions, based on the best man for the job and not the best job for The Man.
I know some feel strongly that we should publicly fund as little as possible. To them, I say this: You feel that way? You believe in small gov't? You believe in market based solutions? Well, if elections were publicly financed, YOU would have the ability to stand before us and share your ideas and change our minds and earn our votes and lead us. That's something that nobody can do now without a million dollars or a million "friends" and that's something that we can change!
We need to publicly finance every federal office. Overnight this would SLASH the role of lobbyists. It would remove from our daily lexicon terms such as "Pioneer, Ranger, or HillRaiser." It would ensure that we never again have to hear about renting the Lincoln Bedroom or $1000 a plate fundraisers or crooked lobbyists funding crooked politicians.
For less money than the government spends on ball point pens every year we can give our government back to our people.
Eviscerate me with your comments, call me naive, label me a commie or a socialist or whatever else. But I'm right about this.