Pay-for-Play or Friends Helping Friends?

Today's main editorial in the Sacramento Bee focuses on Doolittle's most recent interview with the Bee's Washington Bureau reporter David Whitney. This editorial can be summed up in one sentence: We're not buying your "friends helping friends" BS and think your constituents may not either.

One [question] is his view of politics as a matter of friends helping friends. The other is that while he professes a "philosophy of limited government," he is willing to help his friends prosper through congressionally earmarked government contracts.

I see...Doolittle's concept of 'limited government' is to limit his representation and advocacy to his so-called friends who generously donate to his PAC. I believe in an open, representative government so it's no wonder I think it's imperative to DUMP DOOLITTLE. His style of 'limited government' is deeply dangerous to our democracy.

Doolittle clearly is entrenched in a political culture of friends helping friends and a business culture focused on snaring public dollars. That might be normal in Washington, but is it what Doolittle's constituents expect him to be doing? Where does zeal to help friends from all corners of the nation leave the mass of his constituents - people who aren't his friends, but are owed his time and representation? How does he square his notions of limited government with his willingness to open the federal trough to a favored few?

The bottom line is this: Doolittle's getting wealthy from his pay-for-play version of 'limited government' and he's not going to stop until he's indicted and loses his seat in congress.

Words Have Power also takes a look at this editorial.