. .

Who is Ed Philpot?
Support The Site
Media Appearances
Make POP Your Homepage
Send Comments

The POP Book List

The Threatening Storm by Kenneth Pollack

Theodore Rex by Edmund Morris

John Adams by David McCullough

Truman by David McCullough

First You Have To Row A Little Boat by Richard Bode

Website Picks

NY Times
Talking Points Memo
Democrats for National Security
Joe Conason's Journal
Media Notes
Washington Monthly
The Note
WSJ.com OpinionJournal

NH Websites

Democrat Think Dynamic Group
Mark Fernald - NH Progressive Network

2003 Archives

Week of 1.5.03
Week of 1.12.03
Week of 1.19.03
Week of 1.26.03
Week of 2.2.03
Week of 2.9.03
Week of 2.16.03
Week of 2.23.03
Week of 3.2.03
Week of 3.9.03
Week of 3.16.03
Week of 3.23.03
Week of 3.30.03
Week of 4.6.03
Week of 4.13.03
Week of 4.20.03
Week of 4.27.03
Week of 5.4.03
Week of 5.11.03
Week of 5.18.03
Week of 5.25.03
Week of 6.1.03
Week of 6.8.03
Week of 6.15.03
Week of 6.22.03
Week of 6.29.03
Week of 7.6.03
Week of 7.13.03
Week of 7.20.03
Week of 7.27.03
Week of 8.3.03
Week of 8.10.03
Week of 8.17.03
Week of 8.24.03
Week of 8.31.03

Click here for full archives

. . .

September 8, 2003, 1:30 P.M.

Apparently, President Bush has decided that he doesn’t want to talk about Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein, or vast stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons. I can’t say that I blame him because there is nothing that he can say about any of these subjects that is very helpful to his re-election bid.

What the President did say is that he wants Congress to appropriate about $87 billion for Iraq next year. That $87 billion consists of approximately $66 billion for the military and the rest for the reconstruction of Iraq. Of course, there was no talk of a plan for reconstruction or the extrication of our troops from this quagmire. Listening to the speech Sunday night, what bothered me most was the lack of any concrete plan. All we heard were catch phrases and platitudes reminiscent of the sound bites used to justify going to war in Iraq. There was no substance to the speech. The President was all hat and no cattle.

Tony Blair is embattled at home because of the so-called “dodgy dossier” of intelligence that was used to coerce the British people into supporting the war. The European members of the U.N. (other than Britain) are now looking at attempts by the U.S. to gain wider support for the occupation as vindication of their earlier resistance. Although there are no sneers of “I told you so” (yet), I have the feeling that the diplomats are thinking that, given the time the U.S. and Britain have had to search, unsuccessfully, for WMDs, giving Hans Blix a few more months wouldn’t have been such a bad idea after all. The extra time might have also allowed for some planning for what would happen after the war was won.

The lack of planning for peace has had unanticipated and frightening consequences. High on the list is the infiltration into Iraq of groups actually seeking a confrontation with U.S. troops. Al Qaeda had no demonstrated links to Iraq before the war. Despite the rhetoric, they simply had no major connection. Now, however, a recent Washington Post report claims that al Qaeda sees Iraq as a perfect place to confront the U.S., to destabilize the peace process and to erode support for the occupation at home by deepening the need to keep U.S. boots in the sand.

The escalating cost, in both lives and treasure will wear thin for the American public, who will have Iraq and the economy on its mind in the next election. Even though President Bush said “the cost of freedom and the cost of peace cannot be measured,” factions resisting us in Iraq are betting otherwise.

Let’s not forget that the economy is sagging here at home. While the President is pumping billions into Iraq to create jobs and to prop up a coalition of U.S. puppets like Ahmed Chalabi. Millions of U.S. jobs will have been lost by the second anniversary of 9/11. Interest rates are climbing and, I predict, the real estate market is about to go bust.

Now the administration is approaching the U.N. to help administer the peace in Iraq (under U.S. direction, of course) and has stopped threatening Iran over its nuclear weapons program (in part because Russia and France are now making threats of their own) and is backing farther away from Afghanistan. It sounds like the only plan at work is the Bush re-election plan.

September 8, 2003, 12:30 P.M.

As I write this, the United States Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on the constitutionality of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. McCain-Feingold, you will recall, seeks to limit certain types of large contributions to political campaigns. The idea is that large contributors to political campaigns expect, and receive, special “considerations” from their candidates once they are elected. Many such large contributors even hedge their bets by backing candidates from opposite parties in the same election.

Power and influence are the key to our current system of financing political campaigns. The current administration’s ties to big business (and big money) has resulted in government action that favors big business at the expense of the environment, the poor, the elderly and consumers, to name a few.

McCain-Feingold is not a panacea: it is a start. Its critics say that the current system does not lead to “corruption or the appearance of corruption,” and therefore the law is an unconstitutional attack on free speech. The “corruption or appearance of corruption” language was chosen because the U.S. Supreme Court has said in the past that these were legitimate reasons for the Court to intervene in the campaign finance reform debate.

Senator John McCain, one of the bill’s sponsors, points out that without some form of campaign finance reform it is the large majority of the population that loses its voice. While opponents may argue that restrictions on large contributions limit the free speech of corporate and wealthy citizens. The net effect of failing to limit large donations is to dilute and minimize the voice of those who cannot afford to get the attention of candidates with their money. It is naïve to suggest that one-man-one-vote can overcome the marketing, influence and exposure that big money can buy in a modern campaign.

The Supreme Court will be limited in its ability to address the campaign finance reform bill because the court can only comment and ultimately rule on whether or not the bill unconstitutionally limits the rights of campaign contributors by limiting the amount of money they can put into the system. Unfortunately, the court cannot, in the current case, rule on the effect of big money contributions on the speech rights of the rest of us. The court isn’t being asked to balance the rights of the moneyed elite against the effect on the un-moneyed majority and that’s what needs to happen. In fact, that is the larger discussion that is at the heart of the campaign finance reform debate because the current process demands that candidates pander to large contributors because they know that it takes big bucks to get elected. The best messages are often left on the side of the road because without money, there is no way to get the message out.

We think that it is time to limit what can be spent on a candidate's behalf in an election campaign. Modern politicians spend inordinate amounts of their time raising money for their next election. Placing the limit on what the candidate can spend, rather than on what individuals and groups can contribute, will level the playing field, and will force candidates to communicate more directly with the entire electorate, rather than pre-selected regional television markets. This will have the added benefit of forcing voters to think about their choices, to become informed, and to vote on issues rather than on sound bites and slick television ads.

The spending limits could be phased in based on primary and general elections, and soft money would have to be included. In other words, if Bechtel wants to produce ads for, say, George W. Bush, his spending limit would be “charged” with the cost of the ad campaign. This does not limit the ability of corporations or individuals to spend their money on campaigns, it just limits the ability of the candidate to collect it, and in effect, makes it impossible to buy an election.

Send Tips or Comments to Philpot on Politics

Copyright 2003 Edward Philpot

. . . . .