I got a nice e-mail from Bill Richardson the other day. He’s running for President, he’s “in it to win,” he’s eager to serve his country in its time of need… or some such thing.In this earnest appeal for my support (and my money) there isn’t a nickel’s worth of difference between him and:
Joe Biden
Hillary Clinton
Chris Dodd
John Edwards
Mike Gravel
Denis Kucinich
Tom Vilsack
Barak Obama.
And those are just the Democrats. Over in the Republican camp we have:
Sam Brownback
John Cox
Duncan Hunter
Michael Smith
Jim Gilmore
Rudy Giuliani
Mike Huckabee
John McCain
Ron Paul
Mitt Romney
Tom Tancredo
Tommy Thompson.
At the bottom of Bill Richardson’s e-mail was a button I could click to unsubscribe. When I did this a little box popped up asking why I had done that. My reply: “Too early in the election cycle. Come back just before the first primary.”
The truth of the matter is that none of the pre-primary political rhetoric is going to make one iota’s difference in national policy or the fate of the nation. Each candidate will struggle to raise the required war chest of a rumored one hundred million dollars.
That money will not be spent on the poor, on providing health care, on educating the young or preserving the environment. It will largely enrich television production units, TV stations, assorted political mercenaries, and consultants.
Will I vote in the primary? Sure. Will I vote in the general election? Well, I always have. But until September, 2008, my dears, I plan not to give a damn.
4 comments:
Want to see God laugh?
Make a plan.
Place me in the skeptical column of your not giving a damn as the presidential circus ensues. Maybe you'll pull it off. I stand no chance.
By the way, and it's probably a typo, your post is the first place I've seen McCain's name misspelled.
I've nipped in and corrected the spelling of McCain. I pulled the list from another web site, but the error is still mine.
It will be simplicity itself to ignore these rascals' campaign bites.
My guess is that if we blind quote them no one will be able to tell who is being quoted.
Twenty times $100 million? Really, $100 million each? Two Billion US dollars squandered to persuade me to vote for one corporate mogul or another?
Well, of course, not all of them will mount viable campaigns, but still... The only reason any of them need that much money is because the other one will have it.
What a waste. And what a boon for all the corporate media who should be giving free time to every candidate as a public service. And what a boon for the corporate lobbyists who have such power to purchase influence that us ordinary citizens can never hope to match.
The whole thing is cockeyed. Federal clean elections, please. If each cndidate had to put $10 million into the public pot in order to file - there would be a hue and cry, but if that money were used for the campaigns and no other, and the media requyired to give x amunt of space/time in order to retain their license to use OUR public airwaves, how much more honest at least.
I disagree. There are not too many candidates, there are too few. They are all cast from the same mould. They all share the same views, though with some variation between parties, no doubt. There is a not a single candidate, nor under the current system could there be a candidate from any other experience or background but Governor, Congressman, military high command or Cabinet (except perhaps quixotic self-financed wealthy toff on a crusade).
I want to see a housewife, a labor organizer, a shop foremen, an NCO, a scientist, a novelist, a journalist, a poverty advocate, or any of thousand different perspectives able to offer direction and leadership to our country. But that will never happen under our current system. All we'll ever get is ambitious bastards on the modern American cursus honorum to become the Imperial President.
Post a Comment