then perhaps there has never been a viable 3rd party candidate? perrot certainly had the money, nader had the recognition... in texas kinky certainly caused a stir, but as far as i know none ever got more than 18%. i disagree, i think money in politics is a bigger factor than media access or likeability.
Jorjecito. bless your heart. Didn't you go to, in your not so humble opinion, a good college? If I'm not mistaken this is part of your belief that you are smarter or at least more deserving than not only the average bear, but vitrtually all who did not go to a top 25 school. I think you are even from relatively small city or town Texas. When did you start believing that everyone around you was a libpig?
I heard this on the news last night. I was astounded. It is almost frrghtening. Even the big money thinks the Repubs don't have a chance. This may be a historical first since 1900 or something. Anybody know when this last occurred if ever. Maybe in Roosevelt's 3rd or 4th campaign? or never?
I agree with you that this is a problem except for the part about campaign donations being illegal. Under a democracy and having freedom of speech we should be allowed to use our money to promote a candidate or cause of our choosing. I know many will argue that money isn't speech but in a marketplace of ideas requiring resources to get your message out they are almost the same. While yes money can corrupt the system but I don't believe the Constitution should allow for restricting how much we choose to support a candidate.
Truly earth shattering, in my opinion. I'm waiting for the spin from some of our diehard Bush supporters as to how it's all meaningless. D&D. Gods in Space!
Maybe it will be as successful as P Diddy's Vote or Die campaign? LOL People under 30 vote at low rates. Basing your campaign on that strategy is senseless. Hussein Obama raised a lot of money from people who gave less than $100. Congratulations, a lot of people who haven't figured out how to accumulate wealth in this country support him. What a ringing endorsement...
The MONUMENTAL thrashing of Republicans in the last election, followed by a healthy dose congressional investigation and oversight of the Bush Administration's historic corruption, combined with the rolling implosion of the Republican party has got tj peeing his pants about the '08 elections already.
You mean soimething like McCain-Feingoold that McCain just threw out the window when he "revamped" his fundraising goals after gettinng his ass handed to him in the first quarter?
In general yes and if I recall correctly the USSC overturned several of McCain-Feingold's provisions. I don't have enough indepth knowledge of them to say which parts do and do not pass Consitutional muster but on Constitutional principle I think that limiting how much someone can contribute to a candidate or a cause is limiting free speech. I will also add that I think campaign finance laws have often proven futile it seems like after each law you see a bigger paroxism of spending. After McCain Feingold you saw an explosion of spending on 541 groups like the Swift Boats. As long as we rely on mass media money will always find a way to get into campaigns.
I've said from the beginning there would always be a need for a 3rd Dem candidate besides Hillary or Obama. Unfortunately, I now doubt it will be John Edwards. If Gore gets the nod, I can't vote for him. My opinions on the fundraising totals: McCain is in serious trouble. The longer he flounders the more it looks like he would be nothing more than a filler, unelectable candidate like Bob Dole if he gets the nomination. There is still time for him to right the ship but in order to do so, he may need to flip flop on some issues to light any kind of fire in anyone. Of any candidate on either side, McCain inspires the least amount of positive passion and this may doom him. Plus his age makes it obvious he's a one-term guy (like Dole would have been). Giuliani still has no chance of being the GOP nominee. If you are a betting person, put that in the bank. For his sake, the best thing that could happen is a scandal (like the current one) takes him down early and he isn't shoved into the paper shredder by the right-wing later on. I repeat: The GOP right-wing will NOT allow Rudy to get the nod because that would threaten to make them irrelevant within their party. Romney: Very little to say on him at this time. My biggest memory of Romney is how his senate campaign completely flamed out after threatening to beat Ted Kennedy in 1994. That was probably the only time the old fossil had a chance to lose and Romney crashed. I guess his work in saving the 2002 winter Olympics resuscitated Romney's public profile. Hillary: Obama's fundraising success is a major-time body blow no matter how her handlers spin it. She is considered the "establishment" candidate (which is a negative) and has way too many enemies within the Dem party. Like McCain, Hillary must revamp her presentation or she won't win the nomination. But if she does, the flip flopper label might be pinned on her. Obama: So far, so good. He's passed the money test and has staying power. He hasn't gone under the microscope yet, which should start about now since his detractors realize he's not going away soon on his own. This could get ugly. At some point, Obama's candidacy will have a major crisis and we'll see what happens. There are just too many people who don't want him to win. Edwards: He's gone, it's just a matter of time. Too bad because he was the best the Dems had on the table. His wife's health is just too large an issue, IMO. Gore: Maybe he takes Edward's role as the Hillary/Obama alternative. Maybe it's been long enough for the Dems to forgive him for blowing the 2000 election.
I understand your point but disagree completely. The problem is only baby steps have been tried in campaign reform when radical change is needed. If there were no rules governing political donations we would have a democracy in name only.
I agree there are many problems but all of the cures that I see are potentially worse than the disease. What sort of radical reform would you like to see? Banning all private financing? Mandated public financing? Who picks which candidate gets the money? Do you leave it to the two parties? Do you fund everyone who wants to run for president equally?
I'd vote for him, and I've never voted for a Democratic Presidential candidate. Otherwise, I'm probably voting for a third-party, throw-away candidate. (Unless Paul or Huckabee somehow magically win the Republican nomination.)
