Wednesday, May 7, 2008

John McCain Part 2

An answer to a posted comment: The ideas I sent to McCain were sent in Feb. 2006, not now. He wasn't running for President then (at least not announced), but was rather feathering his own cap on a book tour.

Also keep in mind it took 3 months to get a response when his staff said his normal response time is 1 month. The problem was that his staff couldn't find a pre-formatted letter to respond to what I had sent in. Instead of actually coming up with something original, his staff instead provided a pre-formatted letter based on 2 - 3 lines out of the entire document, only dealing with people's pets instead of the people themselves.

At least I'm assuming it was a very, very stupid staffer who did this. which only begs the question: how much of the mail to the Senator actually reaches his eyes? This is part of the problem of our current President and Vice-President, they are so insulated within their own group the American people (namely the voters) are left out in the cold.

John McCain has also tried to change his image from being the "Maverick" Senator from Arizona to being the conservative who kisses the Republican bottoms. I'm sorry to put it that way, but there it is.

I'm not saying Obama or Clinton are the ideal choice, the Republicans and the Democrats both have their own set of agendas they want to meet, regardless of what the American people actually need. This is why I'm actually voting Independent this time. Canada has a 5 party system, why not the U.S.?

I will also add one more experience with this: in June 2007 I got a call from McCain's staff asking for a campaign donation. When I informed this staffer of what had transpired and how disappointed I was in the response I got and I would not be making any kind of donation, I was informed by the staffer "but that is how you get the Senator's "ear", by making a campaign donation". I'm not joking, they actually told me this. Apparently my votes for him all these years didn't count for anything.

For those who are new to the political arena, this is how it works: pay some money to the candidate, get exclusive access to that elected official once they are in office. It's called lobbying, and trust me, elected officials get paid a lot more than what they make in their "official" salaries by doing this.

This is also how earmarks come into play, but perhaps I should save that for another post...

1 comment:

WarriorFlower said...

I think is that the staffer calling for donations is a complete bafoon for having made that comment, even if it is true.

The idea of getting into someone's graces by "donating money" (call it buying clout) is supposed to be an inherently understood but unnamed fact. Naming it for what it is when you're the guy trying to benefit from it... it sort of messes up your secret combinations. I'm not saying it is a right practice. I'm saying... if you are engaging in improper practices (which, in this case, isn't even exactly lobbyist hunting)... you have some rules for the game. And the staffer blew it. The idea of being a bad politician is to APPEAR like a good one.

Besides that, if you're going to tell the truth by calling a spade a spade... then you should also mention that making a "donation" to obtain the senator's ear doesn't work when your donation is $5. Not even $200, sorry folks. You want to buy his time? $200 bucks gets you a pre-formatted thank you letter sent by his staff and signed with a rubber stamp. You have to be playing a bit harder with your wallet if you want to "buy his ear."

Moreover. His staffer is saying, essentially, that your opinions, views, needs, etc. as a voter amount to a hill of beans unless the senator obtains personal benefits from you. Um... aren't the politicians there to represent the voters, not the payers?

Additionally. The money is obviously to help McCain get voted in as president, is it not? Why didn't the staffer just straight-up ask you to pay off voters? If he's going to say what they really expect, he might as well just get to the point.

As illustrated by the four points above, from various perspectives the statement made by the staffer was a complete "doh!" moment. If I were a complete scuz head politician and my staffer was the one who had that conversation with you, I'd fire him. If I were a politician who still believes in integrity and that staffer were mine, I'd fire him. What a terribly idiotic statement to make.