I'm really worried that the Democratic Congressional "leadership" will end up being a bigger obstacle to President Obama's reforms than the Republicans. Remember how hard establishment Democrats fought against Obama's modest attempt at ethics reform.

I'm not sure that any substantial change can be made in Washington until we have public financing of political campaigns. The best we can hope for is that perhaps half of the domestic stimulus spending that Congress authorizes will actually accomplish something more than lining the pockets of the clients of well-connected lobbyists.

This whole post is a laugh riot. What did you Obama worshipers was going to happen to lobbyists, and K Street, and whatnot?

I'm not sure that any substantial change can be made in Washington until we have public financing of political campaigns.

That is a priceless statement. Remember when Obama promised he would use public money for his campaign, then it turned out Obama was lying, going back on his promise to use public money so that he could raise that $750 million?

SteveT you are right.

However, it also has to do with these senators & representatives that are already multimillionaires, and have been in office for decades.

Harry Reid is a multimillionaire - own land, oil drilling leases, law firm.....

Dianne Fienstein is multimillionaire - her husband has received lots of gov't contracts

Nancy Pelosi is a multimillionaire - her husband is a shrewed investor/businessman

What needs to happen is term limits. I'm not talking about limiting the seat they hold to term limit. I'm talking about total limits, e.g. don't be a U.S. senator, then U.S. Rep, then Cabinet Posts, sometimes they go away then come back.

What did you Obama worshipers was going to happen to lobbyists, and K Street, and whatnot? - Steve IL

They wouldn't be able to remind Obama of his debt to them. Now if only Sens and Congressmen would follow his lead.

Obama was lying, going back on his promise to use public money so that he could raise that $750 million?

Unlike McCain, who took public funds, while letting PACs and the RNC supplement his campaign, completely skewing the intent of the law he helped write. I can't imagine why you think Obama should have trusted him.

SteveIL said:
Remember when Obama promised he would use public money for his campaign, then it turned out Obama was lying, going back on his promise to use public money so that he could raise that $750 million?

You Republicans can't let go of that lie, can you? Go back and look at what Obama actually said, not at what Limbaugh and Hannity told you he said.

Obama said he would try to work out an arrangement with John McCain so that they could run the campaign with public financing. Obama asked MoveOn.Org and other 527 groups to back off, which they more-or-less did. McCain wouldn't even try. So if he had accepted public financing, Obama would have been facing McCain plus a multi-million dollar Swiftboat campaign. But of course, to you Republicans, anything that gets you a win is okay.

As it turned out, the expected Swiftboat campaign didn't materialize. But Obama still made the right choice.

It is the same deck of cards. All we did is reshuffle.

"Remember when Obama promised he would use public money for his campaign, then it turned out Obama was lying, going back on his promise to use public money so that he could raise that $750 million?" - Posted by: SteveIL

Yep, a horrible thing, having Americans paying to promote an American to be President of America. What a terrible thing have to happen.

Remember George H.W. Bush lying, breaking his promise to stop Congress from raising our taxes? Funny how sometimes even Republicans can't seem to keep their political promises, isn't it?

Danp:

They wouldn't be able to remind Obama of his debt to them.

What dreamworld are you living it?

annjell:

What needs to happen is term limits.

You are so right. One term for any office, and that's it for that office. I would let them run for other offices, but they could only hold them once.

Steve T:

Obama asked MoveOn.Org and other 527 groups to back off, which they more-or-less did.

No they didn't. They were just as prevalent and did their own Swiftboating as they had in 2004. Obama had them, the media, and all that private money (which wasn't validated at the time it was donated; it could have come from anywhere, and probably did).

But of course, to you Republicans, anything that gets you a win is okay.

Only a Democratic Obama-supporter would say that since Obama did do anything to get a win.

Lance:

Remember George H.W. Bush lying, breaking his promise to stop Congress from raising our taxes? Funny how sometimes even Republicans can't seem to keep their political promises, isn't it?

Remember what happened after that? Bush lost the 1992 election. And speaking of that election campain, Clinton promised not to raise taxes on the middle class. So what did he do? Raise taxes on the middle class in 1993. Funny how sometimes even Democrats can't seem to keep their political promises, isn't it? We already know their supporters can't remember history.

For the record, I hate public campaign financing. You know what elections are? In this country, part of the infrastructure; the money for them should always be in the states' budgets, not rely on outside sources, especially from the federal government.

McCain-Feingold is a travesty as well, a complete violation of the 1st Amendment. It's why most conservatives (including me) weren't happy with him being nominated. As far as I'm concerned, public money (taxes) should never be used for political campaigns; the candidates should raise their own money. In that regard, Obama was right to not accept public campaign money. But he did break his promise.

What utter bullshit, SteveIl, to claim that McCain - Feingold violates the First Amendment in any way. Only in a plutocracy is free speech equal to how much money you can spend.

Making that equation implies that the rich have a greater right to speech than the poor since they have more money to advocate for their positions.

Public money absolutely should be used for public office. Citizenship isn't based on the amount of taxes one pays so why you even consider that relevant is ridiculous.

No candidate for public office should have any advantage for that office that isn't solely based on their qualifications for the office.

And the amount of money that they can spend on their campaign is the last thing that should qualify them.

Finally, I'm all for term limits, 12 years for all Congressional offices as an absolute limit. And no one should be able to hold any Federal positions sequentially (I agree with annjell to a degree in that regard), anymore than they can hold multiple Federal positions simultaneously.

I think that there should be a similar hiatus that military personal must observe before any person can be appointed to another term for any given office (and yes, I am opposed to Robert Gates continuing on as Secretary of Defense).