Posts with the tag ethics reform

Ethifacts? What Are We Talking About?

chris doering — Sat, 12 Dec 2009 18:11:49 EST

The word "ethifacts" is a coinage of Jane Jacobs. It appears in Systems of Survival, her marvelous updating of Plato's Republic. It's on page 136 of my edition, in a chapter on Systemic Moral Corruption. Jacobs, using a character named Armbruster as narrator, is summarizing Colin Turnboll's The Mountain People, in which the Ik, who had lived happily as hunter-gathers for thousands of years, were displaced and instructed to become subsistence farmers when Kenya turned their hunting grounds into a game park. The Ik . "They'd been given the artifacts and taught the mentifacts but they had the wrong ethifacts," is Jacobs' summary of the situation, which became dire indeed, at least in Turnbull's original account of his two year sojourn among the mountain people. Instead of preying on wildlife, the Ik preyed on each other, stealing, lying, abandoning children and elders, eating grain instead of planting it, etc. etc.

The artifacts given to the Ik were the farming tools and supplies. The mentifacts were the instructions on how to use the artifacts to sustain themselve through agriculture. The ethifacts that were ignored were virtues like "be industrious." As hunter-gathers, the Ik were used to periodic displays of fortitude and prowess (hunting expeditions) juxtaposed with long periods of leisure. Once they started treating each other as prey, all incentives to be thrifty and industrious disappeared. Storing food up for the future became pointless: it just created an opportunity for robbers, who might become violent.

Jacob's point is not that criminal behavior is bad. It's that the Ik were used to operating according to a "guardian" value system that was entirely appropriate and healthy for hunting and gathering. When those same values were transposed to a commercial society based on farming and trade, they were extremely toxic. The Ik population was declining drastically when Turnbull observed them.

"Sunlight before Signing" -- Promise or just empty words???

William from Austin, TX — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 19:39:52 EST

President Obama, you promised during your campaign, and your website still states:

Sunlight Before Signing: Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.

You've signed a couple of bills into law which could not reasonably be considered emergency bills:

Cleaning Up Washington

Taylor B. — Tue, 09 Dec 2008 00:58:05 EST

Cleaning up Washington is a enormous task to take on. By cleaning up of course i mean getting rid of the people the drowned out the voter's voice and swindle deals with Congressmen to vote one way or another on particular bills as well as doing other favors.

For far to long there has existed a type politics that simply went around every election cycle making promises and than forgetting about the people that count. This issue goes further than lobbyist although those people do play a significant role in corrupting politicians. Often times individuals that hold office have stakes in companies that are effected by the way a bill passes sometimes creating serious conflicts of interest and this is only a really crude example. Many people have benefited from the current wars being fought and the politicians that are making a few extra dollars aren't exactly the people a person would think of. Further more a lot of politicians are still benefiting in huge amounts during this rough economic crisis taking place. There is a reason why most people don't trust politicians and the fear didn't come at birth it was learned proving a number things.

Real action needs to come from the Obama Administration when he is sworn in but more importantly real action needs to come from supporters of all political parties in calibration with grass roots networks and other organizations. The ethics reform the needs to take place is drastic and there will be harsh criticism from all over the political spectrum but the voters must push for reform or else our voices will never truly be heard.

MAKE THE CONNECTION: Vicki Iseman(Lobbyist) and John McCain/Why is Keating Five Relevant TODAY?

The Pollitikat — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 09:17:26 EDT

I know that everyone is getting excited about the Keating Five controversy but lets not lose our focus. Why it is relevant today, well let’s think back to early February when the New York Times released an article questioning John McCain’s claims of being ethical. Many focused on his relationship with the young lady (Vicki Iseman) as possibly a romantic one, but the important little facts about that relationship is that the young lady was a lobbyist and John McCain wrote letters to regulators on behalf of Vicki Iseman’s client list.

http://www.nytimes.com/...

Learn about McCains relationship with Vicki and the relevance to the Keating Five and why it shows that John McCain is still unethical and has no character at all, he will continue to be corrupt and when he gets caught he tries to act magnanamus by quiting and then trashing his former associates. But as soon as things die down he goes right back to being the same corrupt, wreckless, immoral individual he has always been. This is a man that made a joke about a sitting presidents child, stood there and laughed when someone called Hillary Clinton a bitch, votes against veterans while declaring his love for them, screamed about experience and then selected Sarah Palin.

Guys we must write the media and make the connection because you know they will not do it without being pushed. They are going to sit right there at Keating Five and Ayers. Write to you local media and remind them of the New York Times story, because there is so much more there--there!!!

TAKE THE POLL ON DAILYKOS: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/10/6/74323/9819/5/621384

Palin's Own Special Counsel Assures Alaskans She is OK with Earmarks

Joseph — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 22:22:30 EDT

John Katz, Special Counsel to Gov. Sarah Palin, published an article in the Juneau Empire in March 2008, explaining that Gov. Palin does not oppose earmarks, except where they become "controversial". (John McCain says he opposes every form of earmark, no matter what it is, and claims he has never asked for or accepted any such funds for his state —we should look into this, thoroughly; we should examine every single line of every bill he's voted on to see if this is true or not—, so Palin's position is absolutely at odds with what McCain claims about her.)

Katz explains that "earmarks are not bad in themselves. In fact, they represent a legitimate exercise of Congress' constitutional power to amend the budget proposed by the president." Legally, this is true, but it clashes violently with Sen. McCain's claims of a reformist platform, based almost exclusively on the earmark issue. Katz also explains that:

Earlier this year, President Bush and the congressional leadership announced that the total number and dollar amount of earmarks must be reduced significantly.
The Palin administration has responded to this message by requesting 31 earmarks, down from 54 last year. Of these, 27 involve continuing or previous appropriations and four are new. The total dollar amount of these requests has been reduced from about $550 million in the previous year to just less than $200 million.

So Gov. Palin herself, in the midst of the period in which she now claims she was an anti-earmark crusader, requested 4 entirely new programs be funded by earmarks. He does claim that Gov. Palin's budget requests "incorporate" the concept of matching federal funds "wherever possible", but the specifics about any case where this was done are lacking. We know that in the case of the "bridge to nowhere", her standard was 100% should be funded by the federal government, despite the "federal interest" aspect of the initial request essentially having been questionable.

Speaking for the governor's entire administration, Katz writes that "We take the position that each entity must interpret the new budget realities for itself. The members of the Alaska congressional delegation are the final decision makers concerning which earmark requests to pursue." So, far from being a stalwart opponent of all federal earmarks, or saying "thanks, but no thanks", Gov. Palin left it to her state's corrupt political establishment to seek whatever money it would from Washington.

Commenting on the fact that a national debate on the integrity of the Congressional budgetary earmarking process had featured certain projects to build "roads and bridges", Katz says that Gov. Palin had decided to re-examine "certain previous decision", due to the fact that Alaskan projects were receiving "unwanted attention". Political expedience, one might say, or simply a reaction to the climate of the times.

So was it principle, or was it that she was told to make changes? Katz writes that "Palin has said the state can either respond to the changing circumstances in Congress or stick its head in the sand." He claims that efforts to re-examine Alaskan projects funded by federal earmarks will help make Alaska more credible in a new legislative climate.

The basic truth of the matter is that Gov. Palin was not a crusader against earmarks and she did not "cancel" the Gravina Island bridge project due to the moral indignation of a no-nonsense reformer; she took a new political position on certain earmark projects (and not on others), opposed some while still making new requests, because the times were changing and it was a Democratic Congress in Washington reacting to the outrageous quid-pro-quo scandals involving high-powered lobbyists, corrupt members of Congress and earmarks.

In such an environment, and with the Republicans losing their majority —during which funding these projects was easier to come by—, it was less viable to base the state's budget priorities on the easy flow of federal dollars. Katz reminds Alaskans that "The governor is very much aware of the importance of the federal budget to virtually every Alaskan." He adds that her decisions regarding earmarks are a response "to the new realities" and that "we are not abandoning earmarks altogether but are seeking to constrain and document them in the ways discussed here."

Her position was to adopt the policy on lobbying transparency, money and gifts that may change hands and earmarks, demanded in legislation passed by a Democratic Congress and pushed, supported and passed thanks to the efforts of none other than Sen. Barack Obama, of Illinois. In this case, change came to Juneau, because reform-minded Democrats projected new standards out to the states, in connection with federal budget rules. Palin was just adapting "to the new realities".

Obama: Proud to be an American

Tom Hayes, working for change — Fri, 09 May 2008 13:20:25 EDT

Have you seen this video yet? Featuring the Lee Greenwood song, God Bless the USA, this is an amazing video. It's circulating around on several blogs, and you should check it out and rate it up at youtube.

Here's the direct youtube URL: www.youtube.com/watch?v=55ZFDUvHj-I

Now, DIGG this!

How Obama defied Reid and got real ethics reform passed - Daily Kos

Mary from Vermont — Sat, 15 Mar 2008 14:26:19 EDT

There's been a lot of excitement on DailyKos about the Obama movement, coupled with some detractors out there saying Obama is all style and no substance. My response to that is to look at ethics reform, an issue no one should scoff at as corruption was the #1 reason Congress changed hands in 2006. It just so happens that Barack Obama played a big role in getting ethics reform done. Not only that, I would like to focus on some key votes which show like night and day, the difference between Obama and Clinton. Obama had to log some courageous votes that amounted to rebellion against the Democratic leadership -- Reid and Durbin -- while Hillary Clinton chose not to rock the boat. Come along with me, and I will share the tale.

beachmom's diary :: ::

One of the big themes Democrats ran on in 2006 was the Republican Congress's "culture of corruption" exemplified by Tom Delay and Duke Cunningham, among many others. Although the Iraq War was a big factor in Democrats winning, exit polls showed that corruption, in fact, was the voters' number one issue. The House was quick to take up and pass one of the most sweeping ethics reform bills in history. They did it in the first 100 hours, and then it was time for the Senate to do the same.

Unfortunately, Reid didn't want the tough House bill, and was intent on watering it down. The Republicans sensed a weakness and cynically exploited it:

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) offered an amendment today that mirrored the tougher legislation passed by House Democrats.
According to Craig Holman of Public Citizen, Reid's version, if it had been applied to earmarks as part of legislation passed last year, would have disclosed the sponsor of only approximately 500 earmarks. DeMint's amendment would have forced sponsors to be known of roughly 12,000.
"DeMint's version is considerably tougher," Holman told me, noting that both Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who co-sponsored the bill, are "on the appropriations committee and haven't really believed in strong earmark reform propoals in the first place."

This all happened in January 2007, and it was a potential public relations disaster for Democrats. Reid did not pick up the fact that the DeMint amendment was the exact language of the House bill, so he spent the day trying to kill his own party's ethics reform. What an embarrassment!

But Democrats sought to block DeMint's amendment, with an effort led by Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL). They failed, due mostly to nine Democrats, including Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) and freshmen Sens. Jon Tester (D-MT) and Jim Webb (D-VA), who crossed the aisle to vote with the Republicans, along with Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT). Here's the roll call tally.
But instead of then passing DeMint's amendment, as would normally occur in the Senate, the Democratic leadership held the vote open, a move that Senate Republicans called unprecedented, and reminiscent of tactics used by the GOP-controlled House that voters just booted.

This was a moment of truth. Who supported Washington's business as usual, and who wanted to change things, fulfill the voters' desire of cleaning up Washington, and was willing to defy the leadership in Washington?

The roll call does not lie:

Among those voting no were Webb, Tester, Feingold, Kerry, and Obama.

Among those who agreed with Reid that most earmarks should be kept secret as to who sponsored them: Clinton, and even Obama's senior colleague from Illinois, Dick Durbin. There are even more disappointing names in the roll call which you can find at the link.

Let's be clear here: this was not just about crossing Reid and playing hero for a day. Obama and the other brave Democrats prevented the leadership from making a huge mistake, which would have given the Republicans endless ammunition. The only reason Democrats have bragging rights on the "most sweeping ethics reform in history" is because a few brave Democrats stood up and made it so. The next day, Reid saw the writing on the wall, and accepted the tougher earmark reform:

Yesterday, Paul reported on the fireworks erupting in the Senate over ethics reform. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) went to the wall for a watered-down reform proposal, which would have kept the public from knowing which lawmakers inserted billions of dollars worth of earmarked expenditures. Republicans, with the help of nine Democrats (and Joe Lieberman), kept him at bay by pushing an amendment that would force nearly all earmarks to be identified by their sponsors.
Today, Reid appears to have accepted defeat.
Reid offered an olive branch to Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., agreeing to embrace his amendment to a pending ethics and lobbying overhaul (S 1) with some modifications. DeMint’s amendment, which Democratic leaders tried but failed to kill on Thursday, would expand the definition of member earmarks that would be subject to new disclosure rules. . . .
Friday morning, a chastened Reid said, "Yesterday was a rather difficult day, as some days are. We tend to get in a hurry around here sometimes when we shouldn’t be. Personally, for the majority, we probably could have done a little better job."

And because of open anti-corruption Democrats like Obama, Webb, Tester, Kerry and Feingold, Reid was prevented from doing a really bad job!

After the earmark reform fiasco, there were many, many amendments voted on, some of which disappointingly did not pass. Here is a link to the ethics reform bill, for which you can peruse through all of the amendments and votes on them. I would like to highlight one more amendment which I think is relevant to this primary campaign.

It was an amendment introduced by Senator Vitter (R-LA), which you can find at the amendments link to the bill. It is marked "S.Amdt.6". Here is what it said:

AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
to prohibit authorized committees and leadership PACs from employing the spouse or immediate family members of any candidate or Federal office holder connected to the committee.

Of course, any objective reading of the amendment knows this is common sense, and a good way to prevent even the appearance of conflict of interest. Roll call, please:

The vote was aye to table (or kill) or nay to keep.

Among the ayes: Reid, Dubin, Dodd, Biden, Clinton (go to the link for more depressing results)

Open anti-corruption Democrats who voted no: Feingold, Kerry, Tester, Obama

Senator Clinton went on the Senate floor the next day to utter three sentences about the vote:

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, yesterday evening I voted to table an amendment that would have prohibited authorized committees and leadership PACs from employing the spouse or immediate family members of any candidate or Federal officeholder connected to the committee. I appreciate the concerns raised by Senator Vitter regarding allegations of abuse in this area, and believe action should be taken when the Senate Rules Committee undertakes comprehensive campaign finance reform later this year. I look forward to working with Chairwoman Feinstein and the rest of my colleagues at that time to deal with the concerns raised by Senator Vitter.

That's our Scarlet O'Hara from New York -- there's always tomorrow to deal with conflicts of interest. As of this date, she has done nothing on this matter.

These votes are just one concrete example of how what Obama says is actually backed up by his record -- he isn't just running against the DC Establishment, he actually voted against DC insider club rules. Hillary Clinton can superficially say she voted for ethics reform. Of course, 96 senators ultimately voted for the ethics reform package, so it wasn't exactly a stand out vote. The real battle was with the amendments, and the choice is very clear between an open government Democrat, Barack Obama, and a get along go along DC insider, Hillary Clinton.

House Delays Vote on New Ethics Panel

rberlind — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 09:35:49 EST

The New York Times reported yesterday that the leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives delayed a vote that would have created a new independent ethics panel (the Office of Congressional Ethics) to handle ethics investigations of House members. The vote had been scheduled for today. Given the many ethics problems House members have been accused of recently, this is quite unfortunate and shows how hard it is to get politicians to follow through on their promises of reform. The failure of the Democrats in Congress to do so many of the things they promised during the 2006 election is why Congress has such low job approval ratings. Hopefully, the Democratic leadership will really bring this to a vote in the near future as majority leader Steny Hoyer told the Times.

Straight Talk on the New Hampshire Seacoast

Michael Negron — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 08:18:04 EST

Barack ended his two-day swing through New Hampshire by providing straightforward, direct answers to voters at Meet the Candidate events in Portsmouth and Rochester tonight. Speaking to over one thousand Seacoast residents who traversed snow-covered roads to hear his vision for change, Barack promised to govern with the same commitment to openness that he has demonstrated throughout his career and campaign.

Before the next president can tackle the major challenges we face, Barack argued, that president will first have to restore our trust in government. He vowed to do so by bringing transparency and keeping the American people involved.

Openness matters. Secrecy, on the other hand, allows for politicians to pay more attention to special interests than to their constituents’ interests.

A closed process doomed health care reform in 1993, Barack reminded his audiences. He said:

[The Clinton Administration] closed off the process and didn’t even include some Democratic members of Congress… and the American people certainly weren’t invited into the discussions. And so by the time they released the plan, the insurance lobby, the HMOs and the drug companies were already mobilized. They convinced everybody that this was going to be socialized medicine… it was dead on arrival.

Barack described his process for reforming health care as one that would engage all interested parties, and most importantly, include the American people. He said:

The process that enlists the American people and instructs the American people about what the choices are… you are building a constituency for the plan even as you’re trying to get it passed… [and] that’s how you offset the power of lobbyists.

With a track record for government and ethics reform unmatched by anyone else in this race, Barack is the one candidate with the experience we need to open up government and ensure every voice is heard.

Barack takes a question in Portsmouth.

After the Barack wrapped up in Rochester, Sergio, an undecided voter from Somersworth, said, “With other politicians, you get the sense that they are trying to play a role. With Obama, it seems authentic.”

USAspending.gov Barack Obama's New Gov Site + His reform track record + Best Of Obama's Transparent Gov Bills

Danielle Clarke USA Vietnam Vet — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 19:12:33 EST

USAspending.gov and Obama's reform track record

Today Dec 13th 2007 witnessed the launch of USAspending.gov,= http://www.usaspending.gov/

which was created by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Funding_Accountability_and_Transparency_Act_of_2006

by Tom Coburn and Barack Obama. The site enables tracking of $1 trillion in federal spending on contracts, grants, earmarks, and loans. The bill faced serious opposition, including anonymous holds by some of the biggest porkbarrel spenders (including Ted Stevens), but in the end, Coburn and Obama prevailed.

So what kind of data does this site give us? Well, how about the top 100 recipients of federal money, = http://www.usaspending.gov/fpds/tables.php?tabtype=t2&subtype=t&year=2007

or say which congresspeople rake in the most pork. = http://www.usaspending.gov/fpds/tables.php?tabtype=t1&subtype=at&rowtype=d
And that's just scratching the surface.

And, to my surprise (especially for a government site), an API is available = http://www.usaspending.gov/apidoc.php
to make it easy to extract data.

Read on for more examples and some implications.
USAspending.gov and Obama's reform track record = http://www.onemillionstrong.us/showDiary.do?diaryId=431
The site is clearly a treasure trove of data and is a huge step forward towards government accountability. What's also nice is how user friendly it is.

Let's look at a few examples of what we can dig up.

Example 1: The list of transactions with KBR, Inc. (formerly part of Halliburton) in 2007 = http://tinyurl.com/27xroh . This came out to a paltry sum of $2.7 billion dollars (so far this year), which is nothing compared to previous years as the bar graph on the summary page = http://tinyurl.com/yq39cq shows.

Example 2: No bid contracts are among the darkest corners of federal spending - the lack of competition in these contracts is in large part what leads to overcharging by contractors and waste of taxpayer dollars. Well, there was $30 billion in no-bid contracts in 2007 = http://tinyurl.com/2x2225 , including money to some companies I had never heard of, including $1.2 billion to Armor Holdings, Inc. = http://tinyurl.com/248loz and, strangely, $163 million to the government of Canada. = http://tinyurl.com/28amw3

Example 3: Half of the difficulty in keeping our government accountable is being able to separate the wheat from the chaff - that is, being able to get at the data for the above-the-board stuff that goes on so we can focus in on the under-the-table dealings that are inevitably taking place. Without the data, it's hard to separate the two. In the "unknown" category of spending includes $2.6 billion for guided missiles, = http://tinyurl.com/yv74mc mostly to Lockheed and Raytheon.

There are a million more examples, and I'm really looking forward to seeing them in the coming weeks and months. It's hard to say whether this will change the ways contractors behave and porkbarrel spending is done, but it will expose no-bid contracts to a greater extent than has been done in the past, and moreover, will enable ordinary Americans to help be watchdogs.

All in all, I'm very happy to see another positive step towards government transparency, something that Sen. Obama has been a leader in.

Finally - I have one challenge to everyone - find one interesting, strange, or otherwise noteworthy pieces of spending using the site.
examples from USAspending.gov + Best of Obama's Transparency bills below to see click read more

USAspending.gov and Obama's reform track record

Barath — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 00:52:26 EST

I have posted a substantially revised version of this diary, available at Daily Kos - please go there and read that version instead. (It has more details and additional examples.)

Today witnessed the launch of USAspending.gov, which was created by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act by Tom Coburn and Barack Obama. The site enables tracking of $1 trillion in federal spending on contracts, grants, earmarks, and loans. The bill faced serious opposition, including anonymous holds by some of the biggest porkbarrel spenders (including Ted Stevens), but in the end, Coburn and Obama prevailed.

So what kind of data does this site give us? Well, how about the top 100 recipients of federal money, or say which congresspeople rake in the most pork. And that's just scratching the surface.

And, to my surprise (especially for a government site), an API is available to make it easy to extract data.

Read on for more examples and some implications.

New Television Ad in Nevada

Michael Pipe — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 19:16:13 EST

The thirty-second spot entitled "Take It Back" highlights Barack Obama's record of reform and his refusal to take contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interests PACs.

This is our first television ad in Nevada.

“Take It Back” features footage from Senator Obama’s announcement speech on February 10th, 2007 in Springfield, Illinois. Watch the ad below:

Here's the text of the ad:

"I know that I haven't spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington. But, I've been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change."

In the Senate, Barack Obama challenged both parties to pass tough new ethics rules and rein in the power of lobbyists.

And he’s leading by example, refusing contributions from PACs and Washington lobbyists who have too much power today.

"They think they own this government. But we're here today to take it back."

Aggressive Ethics Reform: Obama's Plan To Restore Trust In Government

FreedomOfSpeechForObama2008 — Wed, 05 Sep 2007 18:55:31 EDT

Excellent Diary by Jonathan Loving posted at MyDD. I encourage all to read it.

Agressive Ethics Reform: Obama's Plan To Restore Trust In Government

by lovingj, Wed Sep 05, 2007 at 06:38:41 PM EST

Agressive Ethics Reform: Obama's Plan To Restore Trust In Government

The New York Sun did an article today on Obama entitled Obama Unveils Government Ethics Plan. This article serves as another example of Obama not just talking the talk but actually walking the walk. By putting in writing his intent to marginalize special interest influence in Washington, he is signaling to the American people that ethics is not just something he talks about during an election year but the "cause of his life."

The Sun article notes that his plan is broadening the differences between a Clinton presidency and an Obama presidency.

Senator Obama of Illinois is seeking to sharpen the contrast with one of his rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination, Senator Clinton, by unveiling an ethics-in-government plan with provisions that appear to target alleged ethics lapses under President Clinton.
Mr. Obama's "Plan to Restore Trust in Government" calls for mandatory registration of lobbyists seeking presidential pardons and requires disclosure of all donations to presidential libraries. Both are requirements that were widely discussed after the last-minute pardon of a fugitive financier, Marc Rich, as Mr. Clinton left office in 2001.

President Bill Clinton was no doubt one of the better presidents in the last twenty seven years, however, his presidency was far from being free of corrupt influences. Since the Reagan years, the partisan divide continues to grow larger and the influence of special interest continues to grow stronger. Obama is one of the few presidential candidates with a consistent record of closing the partisan divide without compromising his values and core beliefs while also working hard to ensure that government is accountable to the people. That is why, as you have probably heard in his stump speeches, that he worked with Republicans in the Illinois state legislature to introduce the first ethics bill in twenty five years. That is why when Obama was less than two weeks into his first Senate term, he immediately went to work to help pass the Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act.

Obama has shown that he has the best judgment as exemplified by his 2002 opposition to the Iraq war. He has as many plans as John Edwards and offers the specifics, unlike Hillary Clinton, to point the country back in the right direction. He has introduce the most aggressive approach to ethics for the office of the presidency because he wants to restore the American people's trust in their government. He has shown a better grasp of foreign policy than many of his opponents who were critical of his length of experience in Congress. He has cleverly use the debates to unravel the media frames of experience and their rampant criticism of him being "naive." He also never gets caught off guard with credibility questions during TV interviews. He has shown the resolve and the right amount "steel" that is necessary for our next president and that is why Obama supporters' are optimistic about his chances for the democratic nomination.

You just know when you made the right choice and I am confident about mine.

SOURCE

Labor Day Roundup: “The American People Are the Answer”

Michael Negron — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 20:43:53 EDT

The crowd of 1,500 in Veteran’s Park was fired up and ready to go as Barack took the podium. They were even more fired up as Barack told them that the power to end the divisive politics and broken political system in Washington lay in their hands.

“The American people are not the problem,” Barack said, “the American people are the answer.”

The American people who showed up at every one of Barack’s stops in New Hampshire were filled with hope and energy, ready to do their part in bringing about real change.

In the Milford Labor Day parade, Barack marched with over 200 enthusiastic supporters. Again and again, he strode over to the spectators on either side of the road, shaking hands, admiring babies and handing out a sticker or two. The throng of Obama volunteers walking in the parade was clearly the largest, most enthusiastic, and loudest, with a marching band to keep the beat.

In Hudson, Barack scooped out ice cream and shook every hand in the crowd. He reminded the 600-strong crowd of voters that change always comes from the bottom up. Like the “greatest generation” post-World War II, this election is this generation’s chance to put their shoulder to the wheel and move history in a better direction.

From Manchester to Milford to Hudson, New Hampshire voters are ready to turn the page. Many felt that Barack was a breath of fresh air compared to Washington politics-as-usual.

Litchfield resident Diane said that Barack’s speech in Manchester struck a chord with her. “Experience in Washington can really change a person’s judgment for the worse,” she said, “Obama brings judgment and the right kind of experience.”

Don of Antrim marched in the Milford parade, admitting that he would not have walked for a candidate 8 years ago. “We really need a leader that is untainted by the slash-and-burn politics of the last two decades,” he said.

In Hudson, Jack from Londonderry, a Republican considering crossing over to vote in the Democratic primary, said, “He’s really a people person that knows how to talk to anyone.”

He added, “He’ll be a tough candidate to beat for the Republicans.”

Can Health Care Reform Happen Without Lobbying Reform?

Jon @ my policy health discussion central — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 17:26:50 EDT

Barack Obama, more than other candidates out there, has focused on the need not just to change the party in the White House but to change politics generally -- including the tone of the debate in Washington, how we work together across different viewpoints, and whose voices get heard (i.e. campaign finance and lobbying reform).

This last point is especially relevant to the health care reform debate. The health care industry has some of the biggest, best financed lobbying interests in Washington -- especially the insurance and pharmaceutical lobbies. These industries and their lobbies represent viewpoints that should be heard, but at best we can say that they have disproportionate influence and at worst a fairly significant lock on policy makers and process. Over the last decade, the drug and insurance industries spent $1 billion give or take on lobbying, and you can bet a good chunk of this went to protecting the status quo.

So, is the need great enough and the consensus strong enough now that meaningful health care reform can happen under the current system in Washington? Or will the powerful special interests be able to work their magic again unless there first is meaningful lobbying reform and that "new kind of politics" Barack has been talking about?

As background, see the outline of the Obama ethics/lobbying reform package here.

Obama Proposes New Era of Government on Internet

Peter Erickson — Sat, 23 Jun 2007 16:36:07 EDT

Tucked into Obama's ethics reform package announced last week –– which he pledges to sign as an executive order on his first day in office –– is the beginning of a new acceptance of the role of the internet in government. There has been an endless amount of discussion about the role of Internet 2.0 in political campaigning, but what about in the everyday business of governance? How do we get beyond the internet merely being a tool for disseminating information and towards its being a tool for strengthening our democracy and promoting civic engagement?
So far, discussion of the role of the internet in governance has focused on transparency. We see this in Hillary Clinton's own ethics proposal, announced in April, which would require, for example, every federal agency to post a copy of its budget on the web. This seems emblematic of the newly accepted role of the internet –– as a public storehouse for information or as a new means of disseminating information. The idea is to simply take budgets with hundreds or thousands of pages and post them on the web --- to throw these volumes into the public realm.
And this is great as a first step, and at first, Obama's proposal seems to merely be an extension of this direction: for example, (a) by having a period of five days in which he would post legislation on the White House website before signing it, or (b) by ensuring that gratuitous earmarks are discouraged by forcing them into the light of day. And he says things like:

Building on his “Google for government” bill, which was signed into law and allows every American to do a simple search and see exactly how federal money is being spent, Barack Obama will ensure that any tax breaks to special interests, or tax earmarks, are also publicly available by directing the Office of Management and Budget to post them on its website.

These are all great developments.
But the internet can play a much more critical role. Just as political campaigns are now discovering that a website is no longer about merely posting position papers, photographs, and news articles, but about fostering contacts between supporters, engaging them in the campaign, soliciting ideas, and creating new possibilities for interaction with their candidate, it's time that we expand our thinking about the role the internet can play in honest and open government.

I think Obama just might be applying these same lessons not only to his political campaign but to his style of governance. Here's why below the fold:

Barack proposes sweeping ethics reform

Nick Kimball — Fri, 22 Jun 2007 20:18:01 EDT

Barack has made changing the ways of Washington a central focus of his campaign. He’s committed to doing things a new way and getting rid of the tired, partisan, pay-to-play absurdity that is standard operating procedure in Washington.

Today in New Hampshire, Barack proposed the most sweeping ethics reform package in history – and he’ll enact it on his first day in office. Barack said he'll make it absolutely clear that "working in an Obama Administration is not about serving your former employer, your future employer, or your bank account – it’s about serving your country, and that’s what comes first."

His ethics-reform package has several planks:

Closing the revolving door between the executive branch and K Street
Fighting wasteful spending by ending abuse of no-bid contracts
Restoring objectivity to the executive branch
Increasing public access to information

You can learn more about his proposal and watch the speech by clicking here.