Why is it wrong for people to disagree?
As a Clinton supporter, I fear Obama will be a terrible manager of our tax dollars. Where do you think, e.g., his faith-based initiative money will go? To incompetent political supporters? Will it be badly misused like this money was? http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/ob ama/1050869,CST-NWS-garden11.stng
As a state senator, Barack Obama gave $100,000 in state money to a campaign volunteer who failed to deliver on a plan to create a botanic garden in one of Chicago's most blighted neighborhoods. Obama -- who was running for Congress when he announced the project in 2000 -- said the green space in Englewood would build ''a sense of neighborhood pride." Instead, what was supposed to be a six-block stretch of trees and paths is now a field of unfulfilled dreams, strewn with weeds, garbage and broken pavement. Kenny B. Smith, whose nonprofit group got the money, said it was spent legitimately, mostly on underground site preparation. But he admitted Thursday that the garden is a lost cause because other government money never came through. "We gave up," said Smith, who heads the Chicago Better Housing Association. "It was a losing battle." Smith -- an early Obama supporter who gave $550 to his state and congressional campaigns -- said he gave his paperwork documenting the work to a state agency and no longer has it. A Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity spokeswoman said officials would look into the matter. Smith blamed the site's current poor condition on construction material dumped there during the state's recent reconstruction of the Dan Ryan Expy. But a reporter walked the site last week with a landscape architect from the Illinois Green Industry Association who found no evidence of the work Smith cited. The only major changes since 2000: A gazebo was added, and some trees were cut down.
Obama -- who was running for Congress when he announced the project in 2000 -- said the green space in Englewood would build ''a sense of neighborhood pride."
Instead, what was supposed to be a six-block stretch of trees and paths is now a field of unfulfilled dreams, strewn with weeds, garbage and broken pavement.
Kenny B. Smith, whose nonprofit group got the money, said it was spent legitimately, mostly on underground site preparation. But he admitted Thursday that the garden is a lost cause because other government money never came through.
"We gave up," said Smith, who heads the Chicago Better Housing Association. "It was a losing battle."
Smith -- an early Obama supporter who gave $550 to his state and congressional campaigns -- said he gave his paperwork documenting the work to a state agency and no longer has it. A Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity spokeswoman said officials would look into the matter.
Smith blamed the site's current poor condition on construction material dumped there during the state's recent reconstruction of the Dan Ryan Expy.
But a reporter walked the site last week with a landscape architect from the Illinois Green Industry Association who found no evidence of the work Smith cited. The only major changes since 2000: A gazebo was added, and some trees were cut down.
It looks like for 100 grand a gazebo got built. And the taxpayer got fleeced.
So what's wrong with complaining about Obama's adequacy as an administrator? (It is not just this one case -- you can read, e.g., about how the money he handed out when he headed the Annenberg program did not accomplish anything. Links in this article -- http://globallabor.blogspot.com/search?u pdated-max=2008-04-25T06%3A43%3A00-07%3A 00)
What's wrong with dissent?
There's some sniping going on here that seems to have little to do with legitimate concerns.
Hillary supported faith-based initiatives too, by the way.
Also, if you're just raising some questions about Obama but intend to vote for him in November, it's good that you're here. But if you're like some of the PUMAs who come here only to sow division and create conflict, it's pretty pointless.
OK, Barack hired the wrong guy for that project apparently. But does it "concern" you that Clinton didn't manage her campaign finances very well and spent millions on Mark Penn?
Anyway, the point is, it's not about whether there's a difference of opinion about Obama or Clinton anymore. It's about if there's a difference of opinion about Obama or McCain. Clinton has given up the fight. She's not a candidate anymore. It's Obama or McCain. Of course there's nothing wrong with dissent, but I would not call your reference to $100,000 misspent dissent. I would call it circulating an obscure and irrelevant republican talking point on a democratic site.
I have two questions for you: are you supporting Barack Obama or John McCain for president? What are your reasons for supporting who you support?
and Barack giving my tax dollars to an incompetent volunteer of his are not similar in any way.
You're right! They're not the same at all! You win. You convinced me. Barack is evil and I should vote for McCain. Thanks for your guidance.
Depends on the dissent. If it's meant to advocate for a cause, it's helpful. If it's meant to dissuade or even piss off supporters, it's less helpful. Your goal should be to inform and persuade, not to criticize. If you tell me about the issue above and say that's why you have a problem with the faith-based initiatives idea, I would understand, and I would agree with you. If you tell me about the issue and say that Obama is dangerous and you won't support him, that's not helpful or good for discussion at all. Because you don't want anyone to talk about anything with you, you just wanted to poke a finger in the ribs of everyone here.
For issues like you listed above, then push and SHOVE your way through to make sure that Obama puts through his transparency legislation. If we can see where the money is going and do our own investigation, we have less chance of losing accountability.
I oppose faith-based social initiatives because many of them are fundamentally dishonest. I don't mean they steal money; I mean, they'll feed or house you if you're in need, but they'll also force you to listen to and agree with their religion. I believe strongly in freedom of religion, and think that holding life-saving food and shelter over a person's head, or the heads of her children, unless she "accepts Christ as her personal savior" or agrees that "There is no God but God and Mohammed is his Prophet" is simply unAmerican.
The only way I could support faith-based initiaves from ANYONE -- Republickers, Barack OR Hillary -- is if the supporting of these initiatives was accompanied by strict rules that there must be NO proselytizing -- and that they be subject to vigilant oversight to prevent this. But providing such monitoring would destroy any governmental savings the initial program might accrue. Much better just to make it secular support to begin with.
I know there are good religious institutions out there who help the needy of any creed and do not try to convert them, but they're in the minority. Faith-based initiatives are largely recruiting tools for various religions. Can you imagine what the Scientologists would do if they got their hands on one of these grants for faith based initiaves? It makes my skin crawl.
Aid for the needy should not be dependent on creed -- not in the US where we believe (supposedly) in the separation of Church and State. The idea appeals to people who think that being exposed to religion will probably be good for those shiftless poor people and their starving kids, and even if it's not, hey, they're getting free food/shelter, so what if they have to "pay" for it for listening to lectures, being forced into prayer groups, and having to abstain from anything their benefactors don't approve of? Big deal -- at least they're fed and warm.
Unfortunately, I think most of the people who are willing to sell out their spiritual beliefs for a bowl of pottage and a place out of the snow and rain have already done it. People involved with a faith already have access to life assistance from those groups. It's only the people who already don't like being forced into someone else's religion who are partaking of public, secular support. They're the ones who would be left hanging.
I don't think anyone who genuinely respects the US Constitution could support basing public assistance on involvement with religious groups selected by the government for monetary support. (Whether or not the Constitution supports public assistance at all is another question, but I'm certain it cannot be read to support handing it out based on religious criteria.)
So none of the current candidates meet my criteria on this issue, sadly. But there are other issues I vote on (though I admit this one sticks in my craw. I'm very much against religious coercion.)
"Dissent". That's only sowing more division. Critiquing the Democratic nominee is dissent. Actively opposing the nominee is division.
Get the difference?
Uniformed dissent is just trouble making.
If you bothered to separate your knee from its jerk, you might have discovered that Obama's concept of 'faith-based initiatives' is much more progressive than Bush's. Check out ChitownDenny's excellent diary on this subject.
