Jason A Clark

Rush Limbaugh was on Fox & Friends this morning and he had a few things to say about the election.

Just one percent of French people want Republican candidate John McCain to win the U.S. presidential election, and western Europeans overwhelmingly favor his rival Barack Obama, an opinion poll showed on Friday.

During the Vice Presidential debate, a question was asked of the candidates by the moderator Gwen Ifill.  She asked them whether or not they support same-sex marriage.

Joe Biden gave a pretty clear and concise answer.  He said: “No, Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage.  We do not support that.”

That seems pretty straight forward and easy to understand.  Neither Joe Biden nor Barack Obama support redefining what constitutes marriage from a civil side.

Why then did Joe Biden tell Ellen DeGeneres on “The Ellen DeGeneres Show” on Monday: “If I lived in California, I’d clearly vote against Prop. 8.”

Now, for those of you who may not know, Prop. 8 is actually California Proposition 8.  It is basically a 14-word proposal that will appear on the ballot in California that says simply: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

If Prop. 8 passes it will cause those 14 words to become law in California as an amendment to their constitution.  The words were actually originally enacted in 2000 as a California statute after 61 percent of voters approved it, however, it was overturned this past May in a highly controversial decision by the courts.

What I find interesting is what Biden said to Ellen.  He said that if he lived in California he would vote against Prop. 8.  Now, if Biden (and Obama) were truly against “redefining…what constitutes marriage,” as he told Gwen Ifill along with the rest of the nation during the debate, his vote on Proposition 8 would be a “yes.” It would have to be.  Proposition 8 is an amendment that would actually preserve the definition of what constitutes marriage…not change it as the courts have done with their ruling.

I believe this is yet another case of Joe Biden and Barack Obama saying one thing to mainstream America while supporting and telling their “friends” another.

In fact, Obama supports my claim with a letter he sent to the Alice B. Toklas Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Democratic Club in June.  In the letter he states his opposition to all state constitutional amendments that limit marriage to a man and a woman.  On Proposition 8, Obama writes: “…I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states.”

Now Obama is a pretty smooth talker and I guess he’s able to fool some people with the words he says, but he’s not fooling me.  You can’t say that you are against redefining what constitutes marriage then turn around and say you are against efforts to maintain what constitutes marriage.  This makes me think that he wants mainstream American, who overwhelmingly support the traditional definition of marriage, to think that he is against efforts to change that definition while at the same time leaving it completely open for others to come along and change the definition of marriage for him.

Obama and Biden are smart enough to know they can’t tell America the truth - that they support same-sex marriage - because America doesn’t support it.  Instead, they lie or deceive while in the background they do all the can to hinder the movement that would clearly establish the traditional definition of marriage as the only legal definition of marriage.

Obama clearly does not support the will of the people when it comes to defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

It started with a broken promise and has now reached levels never before dreamed of.  Barack Obama’s record shattering and unprecedented ability to raise (and spend) vast amounts of money in his quest to win the Presidency has raised a lot of interesting questions about the influence of money in politics.

Back when Obama was still trying to win the Democratic nomination he made an agreement that he would accept public financing for his campaign just as every Presidential hopeful has since the public campaign finance law was first enacted in 1971.  Of course, that was before the press pegged Obama as our nation’s Messiah and before Obama realized his unique ability to squeeze the money out of his followers.  Once Obama had a firm understanding of just what was possible he immediately went back on his word and refused to take the public financing.

It’s not a surprise.  Public financing (which John McCain did accept because of his earlier pledge to do so) only provided $84 million in funds to use between the National Convention in early September and Election Day.  This is how much money John McCain has had at his disposal.  It’s a great deal of money - more than ever before in fact.  Below is the amount of public financing that the candidates have received in recent elections:

• 2004 - Bush and Kerry - $74.62 million
• 2000 - Bush and Gore - $67.56 million
• 1996 - Clinton and Dole - $61.82 million
• 1992 - Clinton and Bush - $55.24 million

However, the $84 million John McCain has to spend pales in comparison to the amount of money Obama has raised.  The Democratic presidential candidate raked in a record-breaking $150 million in September alone and more than $604 million since the start of his campaign.  Obama is raising as much as $5 million a day, every day. 

When October fundraising is finished and counted, Obama is expected to surpass the $695.7 million that John Kerry and President Bush - combined - raised in 2004.

Obama managed to raise $454 million dollars during the primary campaign — covering the period from the start of his presidential bid to Aug. 31, 2008, days after he accepted the Democratic Party nomination.  McCain raised $240 million during that same time. 

So Obama was already outspending McCain 2 to 1 before the public financing limits took place.  Now Obama is outspending McCain by a margin of 3 or 4 to 1 and it could be even higher. 

All of this brings us to the original question.  Is Barack Obama buying the Presidency?

There can be little doubt that advertising works.  Advertising is capable of not only getting your message out, but also of convincing people that your message is the right message.  If Barack Obama is able to get his message out (advertise himself) four times more than John McCain there can be little doubt that many people will be influenced by the sheer volume of the advertising.  Is this fair?

Is it fair or even ethical that a person or group with access to large amounts of money should be able to use that money to influence voters when it comes to something as important as the Presidency?  What if someone like Bill Gates decided that he wanted to be President and was willing to spend whatever amount of money it took, billions of dollars even, to convince people that he was the right man for the job?  Would that be fair?  Would it be ethical?  Should people with more money be allowed to use the greater amount of money to their advantage?

I think our political system is deeply flawed.  It’s not just about this race.  Obama is spending large amounts of money, but McCain’s message is still resonating with voters and he still has a chance to win.  But the problem is that, in my opinion, someone who is playing by the rules is being punished for playing by the rules while someone else arrogantly says the rules don’t apply to him and is then able to have an advantage over the person who is playing by the rules.  This is inherently unfair. 

At the very least the rules should be amended to account for this type of scenario.  Perhaps the rules could be changed so that if one candidate refuses the public financing but the other candidate does not then the candidate who takes the public financing gets both shares?  Maybe that candidate gets public financing but is still able to raise money up to a certain amount or up to some percentage of his opponent’s contributions?

Of course, this wouldn’t fix the actual problem I have with the whole thing - the fact that it costs so much to begin with.  In America we’re taught and brought up to believe that anyone can be President of the United States.  Anyone can run for public office.  Anyone can make a difference.  But that isn’t really the case as all adults know.  If you want to run for a statewide public office or anything higher, you must have access to untold amounts of money.  This simple fact immediately narrows the field of candidates we have to choose from.  Many good and honest people who would make great politicians never run for office because they aren’t willing to do the things necessary to raise the amounts of money they have to raise to compete.

I think it’s absurd that the two people who are running for the Presidency and who are going to be responsible for balancing our budget and overseeing our economy will have spent over $1 Billion in the campaign to get elected.

Think about that for a minute. 

How can anyone who had to raise that kind of money not owe someone a favor?

The same problem exists for our Senators and Congressmen and Governors and probably many other offices, but this Presidential election has really shown us the absurdity of the system.  Surely there’s a better way?

What if Obama does win this election?  What does that mean for the next election?  I’ll tell you what it means.  It means that no one will even consider running if they don’t think they can raise a half a billion dollars or more to fund their campaign.  It means that no candidate will ever again take public financing for their campaign because it will be a losing strategy. 

It means that anyone can become President of the United States of America - if they spend enough money.

Joe Biden has said some crazy stuff in the 30+ years he’s been in office.  Heck, he’s said some pretty crazy stuff since he was announced as Barack Obama’s vice presidential choice for running mate.  However, I don’t think he, or any other politician at this level of government has ever said anything so insanely crazy as what Joe Biden has said now:

ABC News’ Matthew Jaffe Reports: Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., on Sunday guaranteed that if elected, Sen. Barack Obama., D-Ill., will be tested by an international crisis within his first six months in power and he will need supporters to stand by him as he makes tough, and possibly unpopular, decisions.

“Mark my words,” the Democratic vice presidential nominee warned at the second of his two Seattle fundraisers Sunday. “It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.”

“I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate,” Biden said to Emerald City supporters, mentioning the Middle East and Russia as possibilities. “And he’s gonna need help. And the kind of help he’s gonna need is, he’s gonna need you - not financially to help him - we’re gonna need you to use your influence, your influence within the community, to stand with him.  Because it’s not gonna be apparent initially, it’s not gonna be apparent that we’re right.”

Not only will the next administration have to deal with foreign affairs issues, Biden warned, but also with the current economic crisis.

“Gird your loins,” Biden told the crowd. “We’re gonna win with your help, God willing, we’re gonna win, but this is not gonna be an easy ride. This president, the next president, is gonna be left with the most significant task. It’s like cleaning the Augean stables, man. This is more than just, this is more than – think about it, literally, think about it – this is more than just a capital crisis, this is more than just markets. This is a systemic problem we have with this economy.”

The Delaware lawmaker managed to rake in an estimated $1 million total from his two money hauls at the downtown Sheraton, the same hotel where four years ago Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., clinched the Democratic nomination. Despite warning about the difficulties the next administration will face, Biden said the Democratic ticket is equipped to meet the challenges head on.

“I’ve forgotten more about foreign policy than most of my colleagues know, so I’m not being falsely humble with you.  I think I can be value added, but this guy has it,” the Senate Foreign Relations chairman said of Obama. “This guy has it. But he’s gonna need your help.  Because I promise you, you all are gonna be sitting here a year from now going, ‘Oh my God, why are they there in the polls? Why is the polling so down? Why is this thing so tough?’ We’re gonna have to make some incredibly tough decisions in the first two years.  So I’m asking you now, I’m asking you now, be prepared to stick with us.  Remember the faith you had at this point because you’re going to have to reinforce us.”

“There are gonna be a lot of you who want to go, ‘Whoa, wait a minute, yo, whoa, whoa, I don’t know about that decision’,” Biden continued.  “Because if you think the decision is sound when they’re made, which I believe you will when they’re made, they’re not likely to be as popular as they are sound. Because if they’re popular, they’re probably not sound.”

Biden emphasized that the mountainous Afghanistan-Pakistan border is of particular concern, with Osama bin Laden “alive and well” and Pakistan “bristling with nuclear weapons.”

“You literally can see what these kids are up against, our kids in that region,” Biden said in recalling when his helicopter was forced down due to a snowstorm there. “The place is crawling with al Qaeda. And it’s real.”

“We do not have the military capacity, nor have we ever, quite frankly, in the last 20 years, to dictate outcomes,” he cautioned. “It’s so much more important than that. It’s so much more complicated than that. And Barack gets it.”

After speaking for just over a quarter of an hour, Biden noticed the media presence in the back of the small ballroom.

“I probably shouldn’t have said all this because it dawned on me that the press is here,” he joked.

“All kidding aside, these guys have left us in a God-awful place,” he then said of the Bush regime, promptly wrapping up his remarks. “We have the ability to straighten it out. It’s gonna take a little bit of time, so I ask you to stay with us. Stay with us.”

I don’t even know where to begin.

Does this sound to anyone like he’s promising an Obama administration is going to help generate an international crises?  I’m sure he’s not saying that, but that’s what it sounds like.  Why is he even saying all of this?  How can he already guarantee there’s going to be an international crises?  How can he guarantee that Obama supporters aren’t going to like Obama’s response to the crises?  How in the world can he be so certain of all of this? This just blows my mind.

On top of the actual theme of what he was saying he actually said some crazy and interesting stuff within the text itself as well.

• He guarantees a “generated” crises within six months that will test the mettle of Obama.
• He’s already saying that it won’t be apparent that the administration’s response to the crises is the right response.  In fact, he’s saying that it will seem that it’s not.  How in the world Biden can know there will be a crises and that Obama will answer the crises with an unpopular response is just way beyond me.
• He uses the phrase “gird your loins” which I pretty much never hear outside of church.  I don’t think it’s all that significant, but it’s an interesting thing for him to say.
• He’s already predicting that their poll numbers will plummet after they take office.  That’s not really a stretch for me.  I figure once people realize they just elected a Socialist as their President the poll numbers are bound to go down.  I’m guessing Biden understands that as well and is already preparing their supporters for it since, as we all know, Obama already has this election wrapped up (that’s sarcasm for those of you who don’t know me).
• Biden says that people will be skeptical of their decisions.  He argues that the decisions will be sound but not popular because “if they’re popular, they’re probably not sound.”  Which of course makes me wonder why they’ve been harping on Bush all this time.  They are the ones making his decisions unpopular which, by Biden’s argument, means that Bush’s decisions are probably pretty sound…
• Biden makes the statement, “We do not have the military capacity, nor have we ever, quite frankly, in the last 20 years, to dictate outcomes.”  What?  So for the last 20 years we haven’t had the military capability to win a war?  That’s what he’s really saying.  This, of course, overlooks both Gulf Wars and the war in Afghanistan for which we certainly had the military capability to dictate the outcome.  This is an idiotic statement from a Senator who’s been voting against pretty much every single military proposal that would strengthen our military since he’s been in office.  If he really thinks we have such a sorry military why didn’t he do something about it as a Senator for the past 30+ years?
• Biden played Oracle for 15 minutes before he even noticed there was press in the room.  He shut up soon afterwards.  It really makes me wonder what the heck he says behind closed doors.

Once again I’m at a total loss for words at something from the Obama/Biden ticket.  I mean, I’m usually at a loss for words when I try to verbalize Obama’s plans since they make little sense, but Biden really takes the cake with this one.

Anyone have any thoughts on what this crazy rant was about?