America lost before the voting began...
A quick reading of the results of yesterdays election would say that Barack Obama won and Mitt Romney lost.
But the truth is that the American people lost and the results were in far before anyone voted and sat down last night in anticipation of seeing their candidate elected to the presidency.
In the famous words of Bernie Mac, listen up America, we lost. But not for the reasons you might think.
We lost because money won. That’s right America, money won!
Let me explain.
The cost for this years presidential contest was over 2 billion, not million, dollars. 70 million dollars was spent to win a Senate seat in Massachusetts, 55 million for a seat in Texas, 30 million for the Wisconsin seat and over 40 million dollars was spent by the candidates for the Senate seat in Montana. Montana? There are less than a million people living in the state and you need 40 mil to campaign there?
How about over 21 million to win a seat in congress for candidates from Florida or 20 million for the Speaker of the House to be reelected in Ohio.
The influence of big money from individuals and corporations on both sides of the political spectrum has damaged our system perhaps, beyond repair.
The question is whether America will rise up and demand the kind of change necessary to return the political system to the people.
I am not encouraged.
All recent attempts by politicians, individuals and even state governments to limit the amounts of money spent on races have been met by a chorus of naysayers screaming about first amendment rights of free speech.
When a group gets a law passed limiting spending, the lawsuits begin almost immediately. Think Citizens United, McCain-Feingold or the still being litigated campaign finance law from Montana.
Ideas for publicly funded elections have been derided as European hoighty-toightyness.
Calls for public openness of political donors in real time have routinely been met with derision by the recipients, and donors, of these exorbitant large sums.
As you and I, the John Q. Public people, express our open disdain almost daily during these campaigns, we are totally ignored.
Have you taken a look at your Facebook page today? There are so many people thanking God that the commercials are over, it’s incredible.
The little girl crying on You Tube who was sick of Bronc Obama and Mitt Romney was just expressing what most of us have felt everyday the last few months. Monday I went to my mail box and it took me 10 minutes to sort through all political ads just to find my two pieces of actual mail.
Yet in spite of this disgust and the total corruption of our political system, we the people refuse to demand change and hold our political representatives feet to the fire.
America, we did not lose last night when Barack Obama was elected and we would not have lost had Mitt Romney prevailed.
We had already lost when we willfully refused to put any limits on the amount of money that could be spent to win an election in this great country.
Somehow I doubt this is what our founders envisioned when they penned the First Amendment giving us the right of free speech.
What say you?
Labels: Barack Obama, Bernie Mac, Bronc Obama, Citizens United, Elections, Influence, McCain Feingold Law, Mitt Romney, Money, politics, Senate Elections, You Tube |
posted by Dave Miller at 10:22 AM
Comments on "America lost before the voting began... "
-
BB-Idaho said ... (10:40 AM) :
-
Shaw Kenawe said ... (11:12 AM) :
-
Dave Miller said ... (11:32 AM) :
-
rockync said ... (8:02 AM) :
-
Dave Miller said ... (10:51 AM) :
-
dmarks said ... (5:07 AM) :
-
dmarks said ... (5:08 AM) :
-
Dave Miller said ... (8:51 AM) :
-
dmarks said ... (9:04 AM) :
-
Dave Miller said ... (3:17 PM) :
-
dmarks said ... (10:53 AM) :
post a commentThe sum of Superpac information is not yet thoroughly investigated, but it appears the huge single donors got little bang for their buck. Conversely, the retired lady up the street that donated her
$$ she saved up to recover her couch to the Obama campaign is all smiles today. Citzens United will
be overturned before long...
We have no problem with changing the Constitution to limit the president to two terms. Why not limit electioneering as well?
Change the Constitution and elect a president for 6 years. That way the president doesn't spend the last two years of his/her first term campaigning.
Also, if we didn't fear messing with the Consitution in limiting a president's term, why don't we limit how many terms a US senator and a US representative can serve.
We shouldn't have politicians serving for life.
By doing so, we would eliminate the amount of money lobbyists and other outside influences would have on our government. You can't threaten a politician with losing funding for his re-election if his term is limited.
If I hear one pundit or other teevee or radio or internet person start in on speculation on the 2016 election, I will scream loud enough for you to hear me, Dave, from here in my home in Boston!
Shaw, I agree that we should be able to fix this issue, but with so much money at stake, do people really want that change?
It seems like both parties have a vested interest in keeping America pissed off about a lot of issues, [abortion, immigration] so that they can continue to go back to the well for more money.
If they solved those issues, where could they drum up support and money?
I think a single 6 year term would be beneficial. we only get four good years anyways from a two termer, so let's get them all in a row and see what happens.
We have a process for amending the Constitution, so maybe it is time.
BB... the bang for the buck depends on who you are asking... but for them, I don't know if winning and losing is part of the discussion... it's about getting the money...
Some time during all the interviews leading up to the election I heard President Obama comment on the amount of money being spent and the Citizens United ruling. It was a brief comment but the take away was that this will be on the agenda in this next four years.
Rocky, we can only hope right? Good to see you again...
"The cost for this years presidential contest was over 2 billion, not million, dollars...."
Which is less than what Americans spend on cosmetics per year. Or pet food. Or many individual frivolous-seeming activities.
The amount "we" spend is relatively low.
---------------
The people that hate Superpacs primarily hate them because they hate free speech and open dissent. They make false claims of bought elections, yet there's no evidence of any superpac paying one thin dime for any vote.
What BB said reinforces this: "The sum of Superpac information is not yet thoroughly investigated, but it appears the huge single donors got little bang for their buck"
The Superpacs are all about free speech. And as is usually the case, when someone speaks, others listen and usually reject their ideas.
-------------
Shaw: I completely agree with you. But not to limit the amount of money spent. Instead, to make sure that they focus on doing their job. At RN's blog, Jersey, an Obama supporter, actual asked people to cut some slack on Obama for doing a bad job earlier this year, because Obama had to campaign.
A Republican could just as well have said this during a Republican presidential election.
BB said: "Citzens United will
be overturned before long... "
That will be truly tragic, and will once again make criminals of people like the individuals who ran afoul of the law for making a movie critical of a sitting US Senator.
Why is it you have no problem with crushing dissent like this?
Dmarks, you assume that libs dissent crushed...
It's just not true.
I think libs, like most people, want an open, truthful debate on the issues. We don't want slander, libel, twisted truth or innuendo in politics.
It was not a lib who said we won't be dictated to by the fact checkers.
I think the goal should be to find a way to give people access to our politicians, give them voice, and get money out of the equation.
For years politicians of both sides have said that lobbyist's money is corrupting politics. It is a writ of faith as evidenced at every new inauguration by new rules governing lobbyist access to the White House and Congress.
Why is it that we can see a direct line between lobbyists money and a quid pro quo in politics, but we claim that is not true in campaign money?
It's illogical.
We've got to find a way to limit money in these campaigns.
That money may or may not buy results, but it does buy access and access is power, both now now and in the future.
And it is power you and I do not have.
Dave said: "Dmarks, you assume that libs dissent crushed..."
It is not an assumption. I hear this from countless liberals, and also in op-ed pieces in liberal newspapers. Especially the ones who want "finance" reform in order to eliminate campaign ads. That is, outright censorship. This might not be your goal, but it is very common.
"I think libs, like most people, want an open, truthful debate on the issues"
If the"libs" did, they wouldn't want to rescind "Citizens United". Instead, they do, and they want to crush open debate. Remember, "Citizens United" was about getting rid of a law that made it a crime for some people to make a film that criticized a sitting US senator. Check into the case: th
As for "truthful", that is a problem. As both sides readily label opinions and inconvenient facts as being intruthful. If we had truly open debate, people could express these even if the other side incorrectly thought them "untruthful"
This is why we need open debate, without the very bad problem of government censoring expression because someone thought it wasn't "Truthful".
"It was not a lib who said we won't be dictated to by the fact checkers"
The only problem with that statement is the assumption that the fact checkers being condemned were actually fact checkers. In so many cases, these "Fact checkers" were wrong, and the truth was on Romney's side. So it was good that Romney wasn't going to be dictated by self-appointed but biased guardians who actually were lying themselves.
"Why is it that we can see a direct line between lobbyists money and a quid pro quo in politics, but we claim that is not true in campaign money?"
Actually, I favor limits on campaign contributions. But I don't favor limits on the ability of people to speak truth to power.
Historically DMarks, politicians of all stripes, and both sides, accepted the work of sites like factcheck.org and politifact as generally unbiased sources of information when it came to the truthfulness of politicians.
There once was a day when Republicans and Dems alike praised their work, even when it inconvenient to do so.
That is no longer true and I suspect it has less to do with accuracy and more to do with politics.
As for open debate, tell me why anyone needs to be anonymous with their political contributions, or free speech as you call it?
If they have the courage of their convictions, what on earth is wrong with requiring them to be open about their support of various politicians?
If you favor limits on campaign contributions, you must feel pretty lonely on the conservative side. There's not many of you guys out there.
How should we handle that, since you claim it is a free speech issue?
"That is no longer true and I suspect it has less to do with accuracy and more to do with politics."
I checked some of the ones Romney was "called" on, and he got it right and the fact checkers wrong. The first that comes to mind is Romney claiming that Obama was eliminating the work requirement for welfare. The factcheck/etc article was an outrageous bit of illogic: the claim that Obama didn't eliminate the requirement, he just made it optional.
You asked: "As for open debate, tell me why anyone needs to be anonymous with their political contributions, or free speech as you call it?"
You are confusing two different things. Campaign contributions (which are not protected) and free speech (which is). Anonymous dissent has proven to very important in protests and revolutions all around the world. Why is this freedom somehow less important in the free world?
"If they have the courage of their convictions, what on earth is wrong with requiring them to be open about their support of various politicians?"
The answer is here. This puts a face on the idea that dissent should not be controlled this way. Also, your idea is not included in the UN Declaration of Human Rights on this subject, and runs counter to it. Especially in the authoritarian countries, lack of anonymity means persecution. Why is a freedom like this somehow good for people in countries like that, and not in ours?
"How should we handle that [campaign contributions], since you claim it is a free speech issue?"
I don't, and I never did. Not sure why you are confused about this issue. Matters such as giving money to the Obama, Dole, etc campaigns are not touched at all by the First Amendment. Matters of the people speaking out on political issues (even including that casino guy) are strongly protected and at the heart of the wording, meaning, and intent of the First Amendment.