General discussion

Locked

The biggest election irony

By maxwell edison ·
In 2001, Senator McCain said the bill he was co-sponsoring with Russ Feingold (McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act) would keep big money out of politics.

In the final days of the 2008 presidential campaign, Senator McCain said, "They spent more, that's the element ..... He (Obama) told the American people something that was patently false and then he's raised a whole lot of money and the implications of that for future presidential elections should be very disturbing to every American. One thing we've shown in history - you get unlimited amounts of money into political campaigns, you get corruption and you get scandals,"

(Not to mention the $$$$ spent by the various 527 organizations.)

The prospect of being financially hamstrung by the very fundraising system he helped create is the latest in a series of bitter challenges for the presumed GOP nominee.....
- The Washington Post in February 2008

McCain advisers say Obama spent his way into putting North Carolina in play, using his formidable campaign warchest to bombard the state with TV ads. Obama outspent McCain on TV in North Carolina from Sept. 28 to Oct. 4 by an eight-to-one margin -- more than $1.2 million compared with $148,000 for McCain, according to TNS Media Intelligence Campaign Media Analysis Group and the Wisconsin Advertising Project..... The McCain campaign said it is not surprised that Florida would be close. Obama has spent more than $10 million on TV ads that have been running for months.

Speaking a few hours after Obama's campaign reported raising a record $150 million in September, McCain said the overall sum the Democrat has raised for his campaign -- $605 million -- showed the "dam has broken" for future White House races..... The Arizona senator has been limited to spending $84 million for the general election campaign after accepting federal funds under a program created after the Watergate scandal. Obama initially indicated he would adhere to the same limit, but reversed course and became the first post-Watergate candidate to finance a general-election campaign with private funding.


A look back in history. It looks like Cato was dead-on with this one.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-393es.html

It could be argued that John McCain doomed his own campaign with a bill that he, himself, pushed through Congress.

And something about buying elections comes to mind. (Oh, right, it was all money from the little guy.)

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

150 total posts (Page 1 of 15)   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next
| Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

I've always wondered

by CharlieSpencer In reply to The biggest election iron ...

about the Supremes' decision that campaign money equals speech. I wish they'd ruled that it applied only to those eligible and registered to vote.

Collapse -

Of course,

by TonytheTiger In reply to I've always wondered

some later court might rule that such speech is solely a right of the "people"... :)

Collapse -

. . . . .some later court. . . . .?

by maxwell edison In reply to Of course,

With justices appointed by Obama, and confirmed by the Democrats who now control Congress?

Oh man!

Edit: I'm convinced - some people just don't understand. Some people are truly ignorant. Some people have absolutely no idea as to the repercussions of their vote.

I would almost ? note, I said almost - be in favor of a litmus test for having the right to vote. I really don't know what's worse - the fact that they can, or the suggestion that they shouldn't be able to.

Collapse -

I meant ...

by TonytheTiger In reply to [i]. . . . .some later co ...

With justices appointed by Obama, and confirmed by the Democrats who now control Congress?

after that ...

Collapse -

Sufferage

by ncjks In reply to [i]. . . . .some later co ...

The single, most important issue in the structure of a democracy is sufferage.

Two points:

First, whoever gets to vote will always vote their perceived best interest.

second, it the USA, this issue was resolved in the first half of the 19th Century when property ownership was banned as a voting eligibility requirement.

We now have a working majority of voters that will exercise their political power to impose economic solutions that punish wealth.

JK

Collapse -

Another thing - If I HAD to vote yes or no

by maxwell edison In reply to Of course,

We have tax payers and tax receivers. That's an indisputable fact.

At this point, I would almost be in favor of restricting voting privileges ONLY to tax PAYERS.

Otherwise, people can - AND DO - vote themselves favors paid for by others.

Please, someone give me a reasonable argument justifying such a thing.

Collapse -

Another thing -- If I HAD to vote yes or no

by maxwell edison In reply to Of course,

.
We have tax payers and tax receivers. That's an indisputable fact.

At this point, I would almost be in favor of restricting voting privileges ONLY to tax PAYERS.

Otherwise, people can - AND DO - vote themselves favors paid for by others.

Please, someone give me a reasonable argument justifying such a thing.

Collapse -

So?

by neilb@uk In reply to Another thing -- If I HAD ...

Should you weight the vote? The more you pay, the more votes you get? That's the logical next step. Maybe we'll limit the vote to those who pay over $100,000 tax. Once you start disenfranchising people for any reason, where do you stop?

:)

Collapse -

Well...

by Jellimonsta In reply to So?

An almost valid argument Neil. However, paying tax and not paying tax is a pretty hard line. IMHO.

Collapse -

So?

by neilb@uk In reply to Well...

How many people are there who actually pay no tax? Do we count women who stay at home to look after their children - or, for that matter, husbands who do the same. Do we remove the franchise from those who REALLY can't work? How about disabled Veterans? And so on...

I do see that Maxwell was being a little tongue in cheek with his post - wishful thinking - but if you want to really examine the proposition, by all means go ahead but you will fall into a pit of your own making. :)

Neil

By the way, given that your country is full to overflowing with these non-taxpaying wasters who will vote for anyone who offers them a free handout, how come the Republicans EVER get voted in? I suppose you're going to say that they are almost as bad as the Dems. Ah, well.

By the by the way, how many non-taxpaying wasters ARE there in the US? It ought to be possible to find out.

Back to Windows Forum
150 total posts (Page 1 of 15)   01 | 02 | 03 | 04 | 05   Next

Related Discussions

Related Forums