Even Dem pollsters are clueless

  So Stan Greenberg, Democrat pollster married to a Democrat congresswoman, has an article in today's NY Times. It's pretty remarkable, really, in its insight into what's bothering the electorate and its also pretty remarkable in its abject failure to process what's bothering the electorate and how to remedy it.
  Greenberg identifies some of the same problems tea partiers have identified but seems clueless about resolving these issues. 
  Basically Greenberg says we need to continue the course Obama has set us on: raise taxes to put off the massive deficit he's charged up, make illegals legal but be more transparent.
  What Greenberg simply doesn't see is that people who operate from a deceitful basis are not capable of reforming themselves without some kind of spiritual overhaul.
  Here's some of what Greenberg has polled and observed as recorded in today's NY Times:

GOVERNMENT operates by the wrong values and rules, for the wrong people and purposes, the Americans I’ve surveyed believe. Government rushes to help the irresponsible and does little for the responsible. Wall Street lobbyists govern, not Main Street voters. Vexingly, this promotes both national and middle-class decline yet cannot be moved by conventional democratic politics. Lost jobs, soaring spending and crippling debt make America ever weaker, unable to meet its basic obligations to educate and protect its citizens. Yet politicians take care of themselves and party interests, while government grows remote and unresponsive, leaving people feeling powerless.

  So what, Greenberg ruminates, do we do to return confidence to the people about the government, which no one trusts anymore, and about the politicians who take care of themselves?
  He says government needs to change:

In our surveys and media work for Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign, we found that only if people thought a candidate was going to change government in fundamental ways — starting with welfare and reinventing government — would they give permission to spend their money. 

  What kind of change are we talking about here? Isn't that Obama's whole shtick? And what's the solution for Democrats, according to Greenberg?

The Democrats have to start detoxifying politics by proposing to severely limit or bar individual and corporate campaign contributions, which would mean a fight with the Supreme Court. They must make the case for public financing of campaigns and force the broadcast and cable networks to provide free time for candidate ads. And they must become the strongest advocates for transparency in campaign donations and in the lobbying of elected officials. 

  Oh, where to begin. 
  Apparently Mr. Greenberg is unaware that the Obama campaign is thought to have taken contributions from overseas, illegally. They accepted prepaid cards. It was impossible to trace the donations. 
  Some "donors" were even surprised to learn they had "donated" thousands of dollars to the Obama campaign, a fact that only mildly interested the MSM, who lamented that the questionable donations were the source of "headaches" for Obama's machine.
  Apparently Greenberg's unaware that the Obama administration chose not to use e-Verify donations to its campaign, to the degree that now their campaign is under investigation by the FEC. Roll Call:

A few weeks before the election, the RNC alleged that Obama's campaign accepted donations from foreign nationals, received contributions that had exceed limits and submitted fictitious donor names to the agency. The status of this investigation is unknown, though the FEC confirmed it received the complaint.

Obama campaign officials said they have made significant efforts to track down elusive donor information for some of its contributors. In many situations, it has chosen to make large refunds or give any questionable money to the government.

In fact, the Obama campaign has returned more money than any other campaign.

This sum is not just the most of any campaign; it is greater than all other similar spending by House, presidential and political action committees put together during the 2010 cycle. The Obama campaign paid the Treasury Department $232,000 at the end of 2009 for "disgorgement of unverifiable contributors" and another $182,000 in June 2010 for "uncashed checks." 

  In fact, the campaign, early on in 2008, was receiving an "unusual" number of under $200 contributions. Newsmax covered it at the time. Here is just one contributor's record:

In a letter dated June 25, 2008, the FEC asked the Obama campaign to verify a series of $25 donations from a contributor identified as “Will, Good” from Austin, Texas.

Mr. Good Will listed his employer as “Loving” and his profession as “You.”

A Newsmax analysis of the 1.4 million individual contributions in the latest master file for the Obama campaign discovered 1,000 separate entries for Mr. Good Will, most of them for $25.

In total, Mr. Good Will gave $17,375.

Following this and subsequent FEC requests, campaign records show that 330 contributions from Mr. Good Will were credited back to a credit card. But the most recent report, filed on Sept. 20, showed a net cumulative balance of $8,950 — still well over the $4,600 limit.

  In fact, some suggest that the Obama campaign paid to have the security features turned off. Lots of questions exist about just how Mr. Obama got his astonishing $750 million. 
  If Mr. Greenberg wants to get to the root of the problem with Mr. Obama's administration, he might try being honest with himself and others.
  The problem isn't raising taxes; the problem is that Mr. Obama is a patently dishonest individual.