I've been hearing a lot of talk lately from self-described conservatives (of course) that establishment Republicans are so much different from real conservatives who have principles.
That's just nonsense, and I'll tell you why. Here's the reality.
The way that modern day campaigns are now paid for with big money donors footing the overwhelming costs of media advertising as well as other campaign-related costs, a Republican (and that means ANY Republican) politician, whether he's considered moderate or conservative, understands that he has to 'deliver the goods' if he has any hope of winning his reelection bid.
In other words, unless you're naïve and you believe that politicians can accept these large sums of hard and soft money from wealthy corporations and well-heeled donors and then ignore those very same corporate requests for gov't contracts and what otherwise amounts to what those corporate interests consider a 'return on their 'investment,' you would understand that it's the manner in which campaigns are financed (and WON) that's at the heart of the problem.
So, for you conservatives out there, here's the answer to the problem in the nutshell. If you want things to change, in terms of how Washington works in order to get control over spending, you've got to support REAL campaign finance reform when it comes to the way in which campaigns are financed. That means that the public financing of campaigns is the most logical option because that would mean that politicians would not be beholding to big money donors anymore. Without that type of real reform, nothing, I repeat, NOTHING is EVER going to change.
But you guys seem to be constantly suckered into supporting the argument that these large expenditures of money in the 10s of millions of dollars (if not considerably more) is an example of freedom. It's not. Not unless it means it's your freedom to continually get suckered into constantly backing a candidate who will ultimately realize which side of the bread has the butter on it and vote in such a way that furthers his own personal and professional interests, regardless of his stated political affiliation or his particular ideology.
That's the way the system now works and any wishing to the contrary is a waste of time. That means if you want to change the outcome, you've got to change who has the greatest input. If it's wealthy corporate interests and big money donors, they'll be the ones who decide while you sit on the sidelines complaining about the process.
That's just nonsense, and I'll tell you why. Here's the reality.
The way that modern day campaigns are now paid for with big money donors footing the overwhelming costs of media advertising as well as other campaign-related costs, a Republican (and that means ANY Republican) politician, whether he's considered moderate or conservative, understands that he has to 'deliver the goods' if he has any hope of winning his reelection bid.
In other words, unless you're naïve and you believe that politicians can accept these large sums of hard and soft money from wealthy corporations and well-heeled donors and then ignore those very same corporate requests for gov't contracts and what otherwise amounts to what those corporate interests consider a 'return on their 'investment,' you would understand that it's the manner in which campaigns are financed (and WON) that's at the heart of the problem.
So, for you conservatives out there, here's the answer to the problem in the nutshell. If you want things to change, in terms of how Washington works in order to get control over spending, you've got to support REAL campaign finance reform when it comes to the way in which campaigns are financed. That means that the public financing of campaigns is the most logical option because that would mean that politicians would not be beholding to big money donors anymore. Without that type of real reform, nothing, I repeat, NOTHING is EVER going to change.
But you guys seem to be constantly suckered into supporting the argument that these large expenditures of money in the 10s of millions of dollars (if not considerably more) is an example of freedom. It's not. Not unless it means it's your freedom to continually get suckered into constantly backing a candidate who will ultimately realize which side of the bread has the butter on it and vote in such a way that furthers his own personal and professional interests, regardless of his stated political affiliation or his particular ideology.
That's the way the system now works and any wishing to the contrary is a waste of time. That means if you want to change the outcome, you've got to change who has the greatest input. If it's wealthy corporate interests and big money donors, they'll be the ones who decide while you sit on the sidelines complaining about the process.
