|
04 Jan 08 - 12:08 AM (#2227991) Subject: BS: I Win Because I Have More Money From: Beer Is this what it take to become the next President of the United States? I hope that this is not true but Hay!! I'm just a country boy hoping the crops will grow and looking south and wishing my friends there are going to have a great year in harvest. Beer (adrien) |
|
04 Jan 08 - 08:13 AM (#2228138) Subject: RE: BS: I Win Because I Have More Money From: Bobert Well, yeah, beer... The candidate who spends the most money on his or her campaign wins over 90% of the time... Crops??? They different... All they need is a little rain now and then... Bobert |
|
04 Jan 08 - 08:27 AM (#2228152) Subject: RE: BS: I Win Because I Have More Money From: Amos Iowa does not think so.... A |
|
04 Jan 08 - 08:39 AM (#2228161) Subject: RE: BS: I Win Because I Have More Money From: Beer Wow!! Right you are Amos. So Bobert, it's not the best suited person that wins but the one with the most money. I guess there is the root of the problem. |
|
04 Jan 08 - 09:10 AM (#2228173) Subject: RE: BS: I Win Because I Have More Money From: Sorcha Don't forget 'connections'. Money and connections. |
|
04 Jan 08 - 09:18 AM (#2228175) Subject: RE: BS: I Win Because I Have More Money From: number 6 Huckabee's victory in Iowa was not the result of $money$ or connections. biLL |
|
04 Jan 08 - 09:25 AM (#2228180) Subject: RE: BS: I Win Because I Have More Money From: Emma B not $s but not 'connections'? 'Mike Huckabee's convincing victory in the Iowa caucuses last night demonstrated the superior might of grassroots evangelical Christian organisation over even the slickest and most well financed political machine.' from todays's Guardian |
|
04 Jan 08 - 09:27 AM (#2228182) Subject: RE: BS: I Win Because I Have More Money From: Rapparee Ditto from the Associated Press. But I don't think that the evangelical Christians are enough to carry him to the White House. |
|
04 Jan 08 - 09:29 AM (#2228188) Subject: RE: BS: I Win Because I Have More Money From: number 6 I agree Rapaire ... when it get`s down the the big time ... $money$ wins. biLL |
|
04 Jan 08 - 09:34 AM (#2228192) Subject: RE: BS: I Win Because I Have More Money From: Beer New Hampshire is going to be some interesting. There are so many possibilities. And yet, if "Huck" and "Mr.O" pull it off !!! Going to be fun. |
|
04 Jan 08 - 09:41 AM (#2228196) Subject: RE: BS: I Win Because I Have More Money From: Rapparee Yessir, we'll get the finest President money can buy. Which is why everyone should send me money for my campaign. Right now we're collecting empty bottles and smuggling them into Oregon for the deposit. So far the ol' campaign chest is a Black Hole. |
|
04 Jan 08 - 09:42 AM (#2228200) Subject: RE: BS: I Win Because I Have More Money From: Donuel Evangelical support along with a war on gays and calling for an inpenetrable border fence would in my opinion be enough. Remember Diebold is good for at least a 5% lead in any election. Huck claims that the purse is not what wins the Presidency but an expense paid trip to the Tonight Show and a hefty media infusion from the media moguls at the behest of defense contractors would be more than enough to carry him to the White House. Huck might also lay claim to a new political demographic...the overweight American. |
|
04 Jan 08 - 09:55 AM (#2228209) Subject: RE: BS: I Win Because I Have More Money From: Big Mick While your feelings are understandable, as well as supported by recent history, I think we are witnessing something here that should give hope to even the old cynics. I see a couple of candidates here that just might give us the first honest dialogue about two different ways to approach the war on the USA's rapidly disappearing middle class. Obama has an almost Kennedy-esque stature about him, and I am speaking of Bobby Kennedy here. Huckabee certainly has way right views, but is at least a change from what we are used to. I think he is in great peril for that nomination, as the big money on the business side surely doesn't want to see him prevail over their buddies, like Romney. Obama, with the right plan, is absolutely capable of wading through the Clinton machine. He is very well funded, and full of the gifts necessary. While I prefer Edwards, I surely understand why young folks are rabid over this man. I could get that way very quickly. Here's to an interesting political year. It's about time. All the best, Mick |
|
04 Jan 08 - 09:57 AM (#2228212) Subject: RE: BS: I Win Because I Have More Money From: Bobert Huckabee + Iowa = the perfect storm... The rest of ther Republican slate absolutely sucked... If Alfred E. Newman had come into Iowa with a buck 49 in his pocket he woulda won... What-Me-Worry? B~ |
|
04 Jan 08 - 10:06 AM (#2228219) Subject: RE: BS: I Win Because I Have More Money From: KB in Iowa Right you are Bobert. If there had been a knock out candidate on the R side Huckabee would not have won. He appeals to a certain segment that is influential in politics here. Iowa is not full of rabid evangelicals but they are organized which played well for him in a caucus setting. A caucus is different than a primary, you don't just show up and pull a lever or fill in a bubble and then leave. I was at the caucus for about an hour and a half. |
|
04 Jan 08 - 10:07 AM (#2228221) Subject: RE: BS: I Win Because I Have More Money From: Amos This seems to be the beginning of something very, very important -- the American Reformation. May it be relatively bloodless; under the Bush Administration, the nation was on the brink of civil war. A |
|
04 Jan 08 - 10:08 AM (#2228225) Subject: RE: BS: I Win Because I Have More Money From: Donuel I think we all prefer Edwards. Perhaps we are too cynical to give him a chance. |
|
04 Jan 08 - 10:13 AM (#2228228) Subject: RE: BS: I Win Because I Have More Money From: Donuel There is a possiblility that Edwards spent too much time and effort in Iowa to the point where he exasperated people with repeaition. He has been calling folks there for 6 months. Someone said $420 was spent on every person of voting age in Iowa by all the candidates combined. |
|
04 Jan 08 - 10:22 AM (#2228239) Subject: RE: BS: I Win Because I Have More Money From: KB in Iowa I went for Obama myself. I feel like my views and his are more aligned more of the time than with any of the other candidates (except maybe Kucinich but he had zero support this time, even my friend who never took down his Kucinich sign from 2004 did not support him last night). I would be fine with Edwards if he gets the nomination but he seems to perfectly packaged to me. Not just the $400 hair cuts, it's the whole deal, he just seems too slick. There is something about it that bothers me. |
|
04 Jan 08 - 10:23 AM (#2228241) Subject: RE: BS: I Win Because I Have More Money From: Stu I can't see what all the fuss is about. The situation where how much money you have relates directly to the opportunities available to you in life is a result of the capitalist system working as it should. The companies that bankroll politicians sympathetic to their aims are simply using the available resources to ensure a return for their shareholders. |
|
04 Jan 08 - 10:28 AM (#2228246) Subject: RE: BS: I Win Because I Have More Money From: KB in Iowa "There is a possiblility that Edwards spent too much time and effort in Iowa to the point where he exasperated people with repeaition." Everybody was doing that. It got absolutely insane. We didn't answer our phone for the last month because it was probably someone asking for our support. The last week we were getting five or six calls a day. Showing up at the High School gym and having something worthwhile to say is what wins support here. Having an energetic organization helps a lot. That is what Obama and Huckabee had. |
|
04 Jan 08 - 12:45 PM (#2228353) Subject: RE: BS: I Win Because I Have More Money From: GUEST,Neil D The first thing you learn if you study advertising is that it works. The second thing is that it costs money. |
|
04 Jan 08 - 12:59 PM (#2228372) Subject: RE: BS: I Win Because I Have More Money From: KB in Iowa I saw Edwards say that he was outspent 6 to 1 by two other candidates. I don't know what they were spending money on that he wasn't. He was on TV just as often (I don't watch a lot but when I was watching he was right there along with the others) and sent more mailings than anybody else. He also made quite a few campaign stops, though maybe less of those than the other two. |
|
04 Jan 08 - 02:00 PM (#2228407) Subject: RE: BS: I Win Because I Have More Money From: Riginslinger What would it be like if the first primaries were New York and California? |
|
04 Jan 08 - 02:16 PM (#2228419) Subject: RE: BS: I Win Because I Have More Money From: KB in Iowa I have to think there would be a lot less face time. Anyone in Iowa that has any interest in seeing a candidate or six can do so without having to try very hard. There are certainly other states where that could happen but I don't think any of the large population states would give you that kind of campaign. Call me old fashioned but I think actually getting to see and hear the candidates in person is a good thing. |
|
04 Jan 08 - 07:55 PM (#2228670) Subject: RE: BS: I Win Because I Have More Money From: Big Mick I'm right there with you, KB. The beauty of Iowa is that it makes the Carters and the Huckabees possible. It is the one place in this country that it is possible for a person with a message and not as much money as the others to get out and press the flesh and try to be heard. It is my opinion that this is why it should retain its place as the first in the nation. Make that New York or California, or any of the industrial States and it would place elections even more firmly in the hands of media and those who can afford to buy it. All the BS about Iowa having way too much say in the process forget that this is the one place where townhalls, school gyms, churchs, and living rooms are where a candidate can launch a viable campaign in spite of the monied interests. I think the caucus goers of Iowa, and New Hampshire, perform an invaluable role in our democratic experiment. Mick |
|
04 Jan 08 - 09:57 PM (#2228734) Subject: RE: BS: I Win Because I Have More Money From: topical tom Michael Moore for Pesident!I just watched "Sicko."Don't get sick in the U. S. unless you have GREAT connections.Shitloads of money could help too. |
|
04 Jan 08 - 11:10 PM (#2228769) Subject: RE: BS: I Win Because I Have More Money From: Sorcha stigweard, capitalism is an economic system, NOT a political one. Yes, in capitalism the point is to make money and he who does it best 'wins'. Our political system on the other hand is supposed to be a federalistic democracy where having money and connections isn't supposed to matter at all. Trouble is, the one has slopped over into the other. Our political system has become a capitalistic dictatorship. |
|
05 Jan 08 - 07:20 AM (#2228914) Subject: RE: BS: I Win Because I Have More Money From: autolycus Politics is "the shadow cast on society by business." John Dewey "I claim that human mind or human society is not divided into water-tight compartments, called social, political, religious. All act andreact upon another." Gandhi Ivor |
|
05 Jan 08 - 08:31 AM (#2228950) Subject: RE: BS: I Win Because I Have More Money From: Bonzo3legs But can they pass the "nucular" test????? |
|
05 Jan 08 - 08:35 AM (#2228952) Subject: RE: BS: I Win Because I Have More Money From: Ron Davies Money is not the only factor which determines every decision by every candidate or office-holder, though fashionable cynicism is obviously the rage here now. It's rumored that even St. John Kennedy and St. Franklin D Roosevelt dealt with money from time to time--just a rumor, I'm sure. It's time to start watching what candidates say and do, rather than recoiling in pious horror from filthy lucre. |
|
05 Jan 08 - 10:51 AM (#2229009) Subject: RE: BS: I Win Because I Have More Money From: Amos All the BS about Iowa having way too much say in the process forget that this is the one place where townhalls, school gyms, churchs, and living rooms are where a candidate can launch a viable campaign in spite of the monied interests. Mick, I believe Vermont and New Hampshire share this honor--mebbe even Maine, but nothing South of there. A |
|
05 Jan 08 - 11:14 AM (#2229025) Subject: RE: BS: I Win Because I Have More Money From: Big Mick I am afraid I don't understand your point, amigo mio. I agree that one can do these things elsewhere, but didn't we just see Huckabee, on a wing and a prayer, get national attention? Isn't Iowa where Carter, working the small groups first got attention? My point is that I believe having these more intimate states get first attention is like having a test marketing area. Move that to California, or New York, and only money would determine what is up. all the best, Mick |
|
05 Jan 08 - 11:25 AM (#2229036) Subject: RE: BS: I Win Because I Have More Money From: Big Mick OK, I re-read it. If your contention is that there are others where this is the same, I agree. I am speaking of the media attention given to the small State caucuses/primaries. Some take the position that these States shouldn't be first, because they are small and being first gives them more say in the process than they deserve. I believe it is worth considering that this is the very thing that makes them valuable and should keep them first. We have become a media driven society. Average folks feel marginalized and disenfranchised. Iowa and New Hampshire, because they are rural and because of the caucus structure, as well as because of the independent nature of their voters, give the less mainstream candidates a chance to compete with the bigger names. Mick |
|
05 Jan 08 - 11:28 AM (#2229039) Subject: RE: BS: I Win Because I Have More Money From: Amos I'm with you that it is such bvenues that really balance the bloat of CA or NYC. We should keep them first, yes. And we should keep -- they should keep themselves -- using the town-hall and small areas caucuses system. A group has to be addressable by its members, and when it gets too big for that, the media channels begin to take over its thinking. A |