Editor's Picks
SEPTEMBER 17, 2010 12:09AM
Rate: 13
Shades of red, Whitman, Reagan and Carlyfornia
It’s been a big week for Meg Whitman. She continues to run ahead of Brown in the polls and this week dropped another $19M into her campaign making her personal contributions (about $120M) surpass the record holder, Michael Bloomberg. But more importantly, based on these polls, and evidenced by primary results everywhere, voters have lowered their expectations or perhaps have left common sense to marinate until another election season.
An example overheard at a local coffee shop - “I really don't like Whitman, but kudos to her for not trying to get out jury duty. I might vote for her."
Are we setting our expectations that low, that someone doing what is mandated (as in showing up after getting a thing called a summons for jury duty) gets their effort counted as a kudos?
Are our expectations so low that if someone talks to us through the medium of a television/radio infomercial for months that we feel like we "know them" and eventually trust what they say as true?
Are our expectations so low that an endorsement from Nancy Reagan or Sarah Palin means that the candidate is actually qualified for that position?
Does being a gazillionaire and having the ability to afford Neiman Marcus-like marketing to turn yourself into a candidate mean you are capable of anything more than writing really big checks?
Does being a gazillionaire who benefited from an IPO make you a qualified candidate?
Does it matter that running for public office these days doesn't require a long standing public service commitment leading up to a candidacy - like a voting record?
Does being a former business person and CEO auto-magically qualify someone for public service if they claim that running a government is no different than running a corporation?
And in fact, when they say that government ought to be run as though it is a corporation, does that mean that anyone who is not contributing to the bottom line gets laid off or fired? And how does one fire a citizen?
And beyond those buzz words being tossed around this election season: immigration reform, the sanctity of marriage, getting back to individual rights, and making church and state less like distant relatives - what makes these the most important issues to anyone but the candidates running for office, or Sarah Palin's 960,000 closest Facebook friends?
Is the candidate with the most shock and awe and the greatest amount of funding (or Facebook friends) destined to win?
Is Meg Whitman our future?
Comments
i was gonna go look this up, but you might know: has anyone other than meg whitman contributed any money to her campaign? i mean, if there are republicans who have always donated to their nominee and are going to vote for this woman (who wasn't even registered to vote until ...), don't you think they'd be thinking to themselves, "hmmm. she spent $120M of her own money on this race. she's got more, too. why should i write a $10 check?"?? oh, and don't even get me started on fiorina. feh. i'm gonna go send some $$ to brown and boxer. great piece. ;
I always picture Meg in her mansion by herself, sitting on a Scrooge McDuck sized pile of cash, looking into a mirror and saying, "They like me. They really like me!"
You are one brave woman. I would not be able to stand looking at the Meg show.
A good, if really depressing piece, Lisa. Just look at 'em, the three girl stooges.
Jerry Brown, please tell me you have a good October Surprise up your sleeve.
Jerry Brown, please tell me you have a good October Surprise up your sleeve.
Money buys everything, elections are no exception. Disgraceful.
You nailed it with this line...
"And in fact, when they say that government ought to be run as though it is a corporation, does that mean that anyone who is not contributing to the bottom line gets laid off or fired? And how does one fire a citizen?"
Having my boyfriend laid off because of young people being hired to do his job isnt right. Corporations are brutal. Meg doesnt seem to have a heart. It is like something from a grim fairy tale. Im worried.
"And in fact, when they say that government ought to be run as though it is a corporation, does that mean that anyone who is not contributing to the bottom line gets laid off or fired? And how does one fire a citizen?"
Having my boyfriend laid off because of young people being hired to do his job isnt right. Corporations are brutal. Meg doesnt seem to have a heart. It is like something from a grim fairy tale. Im worried.
Yup, all the money in the world or wedgies can't save you from shrinking away. Oh Nancy with the big checks. (chicks)
I don't understand the appeal of Meg Whitman. She spends gazillions on a bunch of nasty attack ads and she seems to have only the vaguest idea of how government works much less how to run it.
Whitman isn't just the future, she's the past! This world has been ruled by the wealthy for thousands of years, and still is, especially right here in the good old USA! As Tom Paine said 300 years ago, the rich have had their foot on the necks of the rest of us forever....and it continues to this day with the obscene tax cuts for the rich here in the USA. Serfdom, here we come!!
Did George W. Bush start something? I mean, he was no 'intellectual'...
Watch the movie 'Ideocracy' and see a version of our future. I see it happening sooner than we think. Heck, look at 'reality TV' for an example and the hordes of people that refuse to miss a single episode.
Watch the movie 'Ideocracy' and see a version of our future. I see it happening sooner than we think. Heck, look at 'reality TV' for an example and the hordes of people that refuse to miss a single episode.
And Nancy is old enough to do what she is told and yet also old enough to not realize what the hell she is doing... She is the figurehead of a dying breed of republican...
Does anyone actually like Nancy Reagan?
When did Nancy Reagan become a Little Person?
The oddity is that campaign finance reform makes it harder to raise money, thereby washing out less affluent people from even trying.
We cap what they can get and we did not index it to inflation at all from 1974 to McCain Feingold when inflation ran over 300%. In short it was three times harder before McCain Feingold to raise money than before.
The issue driving it back then was Watergate with Bebe Rebozo laundering money so you did not know who gave what to whom.
Full disclosure would solve that.
But capping the funds means you have to find more people. Folks who would give big dough can only do the capped limit.
Look, if I had a certain set of policies I wanted to enact, say around the internet, and Steve Jobs and Bill Gates endorsed it and each gave me $5M in cash and everyone knew about it in advance, then how is money infiltrating the system? Then some guy with limited assets would have a shot.
Incumbency has name recognition. Challengers need money to do the image advertising to get their point of view out. Absent funds, the well heeled incumbent gets to put out hit pieces to negatively define the opponent.
Campaign strategists don't mind unknown as a high percentage. It means a neutral. They hate high negatives as first you have to get the person to be neutral THEN supportive. Much tougher task.
So, in a perverse way, part of the solution is to make it easier for candidates to get money so less affluent people can enter so more time will be spent before the media and crowds talking issues and so less time is spent in closed to the press chicken dinners to grab $5,000 from people that might be willing to give much much more if their free speech wasn't limited by McCain Feingold.
Full disclosure and no caps gives us the right to know and them the right to exercise speech through this endorsement vehicle.
We cap what they can get and we did not index it to inflation at all from 1974 to McCain Feingold when inflation ran over 300%. In short it was three times harder before McCain Feingold to raise money than before.
The issue driving it back then was Watergate with Bebe Rebozo laundering money so you did not know who gave what to whom.
Full disclosure would solve that.
But capping the funds means you have to find more people. Folks who would give big dough can only do the capped limit.
Look, if I had a certain set of policies I wanted to enact, say around the internet, and Steve Jobs and Bill Gates endorsed it and each gave me $5M in cash and everyone knew about it in advance, then how is money infiltrating the system? Then some guy with limited assets would have a shot.
Incumbency has name recognition. Challengers need money to do the image advertising to get their point of view out. Absent funds, the well heeled incumbent gets to put out hit pieces to negatively define the opponent.
Campaign strategists don't mind unknown as a high percentage. It means a neutral. They hate high negatives as first you have to get the person to be neutral THEN supportive. Much tougher task.
So, in a perverse way, part of the solution is to make it easier for candidates to get money so less affluent people can enter so more time will be spent before the media and crowds talking issues and so less time is spent in closed to the press chicken dinners to grab $5,000 from people that might be willing to give much much more if their free speech wasn't limited by McCain Feingold.
Full disclosure and no caps gives us the right to know and them the right to exercise speech through this endorsement vehicle.
Brown and Boxer are just receiving millions from special interest groups such as unions. At least Whitman is using her own money. Funny how ignorant progressives can be, and cast blind eyes to the Truth.
Boko -- yes.
Nancy Reagan? Really? I thought it was the trend among female Republicans to be endorsed by Sarah Palin.
"And in fact, when they say that government ought to be run as though it is a corporation"
A major component of fascism. We are already there.
A major component of fascism. We are already there.
No comments:
Post a Comment