Oh, Newt. While I'd like to think you took my advice last week and realized that raising $30 million in 3 weeks was impractical, I'm sure that was not the case. I won't argue the importance of your political action committee, American Solutions, or the difficulty of obtaining funds this late in the race...
...ut I can use your reluctance as an example of what I think is most disturbing about American politics.
Take, for instance, CNN's most prized headline this chilly evening, which (perhaps discretely) applauds Sen. Barack Obama's $20 million (and possibly more) fundraising blitz this quarter. The not-so-shocking amount puts the not-so-inexperienced senator at about $74.9 million this election cycle.
For anyone interested in the math, that amount would cover nearly 44,600 AU students' financial tabs... yea, tell me about it...
Anyway, the amount, in my mind, really forces us to reconsider the age old question: to whom are the candidates most accountable or responsible? Sure, we'd like to believe in the merits of basic democratic theory, that our electoral system only allows the most qualified and (or) popular candidates to assume office. But what about the thousands of interest groups, PACs (like Gingrich's) and businesses who donate the most money to presidential candidates? It's true; the larger one's coffers, the better one's chances at securing success in the primaries.
I mean, this isn't always the case; Howard Dean and John McCain, in their earlier runs for their respective party's nomination, far outdid their competition. But for the most part, donations produce votes. Fundraised dollars means advertisements and canvassings, appearances and stump speeches, bigger staffs and more ambitious goals; more showiness, more political grandeur, more pageantry, all of which is uncharacteristic of real grass roots democracy.
And when the media hypes earnings, they give the impression that the candidate with the most money is indeed the most popular. Granted, this is sometimes true (or near true), as a recent CBS poll of the Democratic field would demonstrate. But any publicity is good publicity. Why would an able minded middle or low income American donate a large sum of money to a candidate (who perceivably promised adequate representation of their demographic) the media depicts as losing or already lost? It's paradoxical, to say the least.
So when I hear the big guys like Gingrich and Obama lambasting the political system while fretting over much-needed campaign dollars, I start to wonder whether this whole "we're going to change American politics as we know it!" scheme is nothing more than an excellent sound byte. You can't change America's election structure if the most contact you have with the country is the random debate and the occasional thousand-per-head dinner. It's about time someone realized that...
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label politics. Show all posts
October 1, 2007
September 28, 2007
If only I could raise $30 million in three weeks...
According to CNN's Political Ticker, Newt Gingrich announced Monday that he would enter the campaign if donors contributed "at least $30 million... over a three-week period starting Monday and ending Oct. 21."
But before you all experience a euphoria-induced blog-o-seizure, let's think about Gingrich's chances should he enter the 'invisible primary.'
As most of you have probably noticed, a couple battleground political states are waging a rather subtle yet important war. Each vying to overtake New Hampshire for the title of 'first primary,' preliminary elections are moving closer and closer to the beginning of 2008. I've even heard CNN refer to what was known as 'Super Tuesday' as 'Super Duper Tuesday' (thanks, Wolf...) because the primaries now resemble a sort of national referendum on the candidates.
That effectively leaves Gingrich four months to campaign; a hurdle that underlies the effects of unequal media (in)exposure during the primary process.
And let's not forget Gingrich's $30 million challenge. As of June 30, 2007, the top two candidate in terms of fund raising, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, campaigned for nearly $35 million and $33 million, respectively.
In other words, Gingrich hopes to do in three months what the current candidates have been doing for well over six. That's a little too idealist for me.
I mean, I, like anyone else, want to see a competent man or woman elected to the office of the president in 2008. I, again like the rest of this Web site's bloggers, hope the person who makes the grade does so fairly and openly with as much discourse as possible. But there is a fine line between idealism and pragmatism. Gingrich should run, but he needs to tone down his expectations if he wants to be successful; expectations are usually the reasons candidates fail. And he has to remember that despite his criticism, the system is what it is. He can hate the present state of political discourse and lambaste the insular primary or donor systems all to the approval of voter applause, but he has to play and rely on the system if he wishes to fix it. Tis the irony of politics.
The political clock is ticking, Newt.
But before you all experience a euphoria-induced blog-o-seizure, let's think about Gingrich's chances should he enter the 'invisible primary.'
As most of you have probably noticed, a couple battleground political states are waging a rather subtle yet important war. Each vying to overtake New Hampshire for the title of 'first primary,' preliminary elections are moving closer and closer to the beginning of 2008. I've even heard CNN refer to what was known as 'Super Tuesday' as 'Super Duper Tuesday' (thanks, Wolf...) because the primaries now resemble a sort of national referendum on the candidates.
That effectively leaves Gingrich four months to campaign; a hurdle that underlies the effects of unequal media (in)exposure during the primary process.
And let's not forget Gingrich's $30 million challenge. As of June 30, 2007, the top two candidate in terms of fund raising, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, campaigned for nearly $35 million and $33 million, respectively.
In other words, Gingrich hopes to do in three months what the current candidates have been doing for well over six. That's a little too idealist for me.
I mean, I, like anyone else, want to see a competent man or woman elected to the office of the president in 2008. I, again like the rest of this Web site's bloggers, hope the person who makes the grade does so fairly and openly with as much discourse as possible. But there is a fine line between idealism and pragmatism. Gingrich should run, but he needs to tone down his expectations if he wants to be successful; expectations are usually the reasons candidates fail. And he has to remember that despite his criticism, the system is what it is. He can hate the present state of political discourse and lambaste the insular primary or donor systems all to the approval of voter applause, but he has to play and rely on the system if he wishes to fix it. Tis the irony of politics.
The political clock is ticking, Newt.
September 21, 2007
Hello World! I'm running for president!
Ok so I know this was last week's news but I feel that Fred Thompson's announcement on the Jay Leno Show should be looked at a bit closer. We have come to a point in political campaigns when and where you announce your presidency is critical to your perception as president. Fred Thompson was extremely clever to announce his bid in the race the same night as the Republican debate. Coincidence? I think not! He was able to hog all of the media attention away from the other candidates running for president - a strategy played to perfection. Congrats Fred Thompson. I'm sure you were enjoying your bowl of cheerios, smiling as you read the paper the morning after your announcement. Don't you love politics?
September 20, 2007
Fool me twice, 2008 edition
Head first into the 'invisible primary' contest, I caught wind of a not-so-fantastic Mitt Romney ad today that read:
"If we're going to change Washington, Republicans have to put our own house in order," Romney says, speaking directly to the camera. "We can't be like Democrats -- a party of big spending. We can't pretend our borders are secure from illegal immigration. We can't have ethical standards that are a punch line for Jay Leno."
Let's dissect this gem, shall we?
"[Republicans] can't be like Democrats -- a party of big spending," begins Romney's litany. However, a look at federal budget deficit numbers since 1970 seems to conclude otherwise. To spare you a painstaking glance at the obvious, the bar graph demonstrates that in 1983, 1992 and 2003, when Republicans were in office, the US budget deficit (adjusted for inflation) was at its highest. Granted, Democrats had their big spenders too. Clinton's shocking budget surplus from 1999 onward occurred, in part, due to Republican congressional support. But the graph, to an extent, proves Romney wrong. The Republicans are just as reckless at spending as their left-leaning brethren. The score: 1-0, simple common sense.
"We can't pretend our borders are secure from illegal immigration," Romney says next. Much as I may dislike the guy, he's correct on this one. The Christian Science Monitor, shattering some hopes and dreams last May, indicated that anywhere from 7 to 20 million immigrants presently live in the US, though official census records estimate there are approximately 8.5 million. Specifics aside, that number is astounding considering how often politicians referenced immigration along the campaign trail.
Yet Romney, who likely experiences a boatload of immigration troubles up in the great state of Massachusetts, said little else on the issue. There was no mention of how the US could secure its borders without disturbing Mexicans' access to the jobs the American economy takes for granted. And certainly, Romney's remarks failed to address a recent ICE report that stipulated it would cost nearly $94 billion to detain and deport all the illegal immigrants currently living in the US (what was that about big spending?). 2-0, informed voters.
Finally, Romney articulates that "We can't have ethical standards that are a punch line for Jay Leno." To a degree, I can't take that away from the man. The biggest problem Americans (ought to) have with their political system is inadequate representation; that partisan politics, when combined with big bureaucracy, seem to upset any notion of political efficacy. But my problem isn't with what Romney said, it's how he intends to accomplish that goal. In my mind, not a single politician on either side of the political fence has done his or her part to clean up Congress' tattered reputation. And perhaps its the traditionalist in me talking, but I see lying to the voting public (what Romeny et. al. do when they mislead those who stare intently at such advertisements) as unethical as hiding thousands of dollars in your freezer.
So, it's 3-0, in that respect. Romney really misses his target. But amidst the same-old same-old that optimistic pundits constantly reassured us we would not see, it really does seem like we've lost, now doesn't it?
"If we're going to change Washington, Republicans have to put our own house in order," Romney says, speaking directly to the camera. "We can't be like Democrats -- a party of big spending. We can't pretend our borders are secure from illegal immigration. We can't have ethical standards that are a punch line for Jay Leno."
Let's dissect this gem, shall we?
"[Republicans] can't be like Democrats -- a party of big spending," begins Romney's litany. However, a look at federal budget deficit numbers since 1970 seems to conclude otherwise. To spare you a painstaking glance at the obvious, the bar graph demonstrates that in 1983, 1992 and 2003, when Republicans were in office, the US budget deficit (adjusted for inflation) was at its highest. Granted, Democrats had their big spenders too. Clinton's shocking budget surplus from 1999 onward occurred, in part, due to Republican congressional support. But the graph, to an extent, proves Romney wrong. The Republicans are just as reckless at spending as their left-leaning brethren. The score: 1-0, simple common sense.
"We can't pretend our borders are secure from illegal immigration," Romney says next. Much as I may dislike the guy, he's correct on this one. The Christian Science Monitor, shattering some hopes and dreams last May, indicated that anywhere from 7 to 20 million immigrants presently live in the US, though official census records estimate there are approximately 8.5 million. Specifics aside, that number is astounding considering how often politicians referenced immigration along the campaign trail.
Yet Romney, who likely experiences a boatload of immigration troubles up in the great state of Massachusetts, said little else on the issue. There was no mention of how the US could secure its borders without disturbing Mexicans' access to the jobs the American economy takes for granted. And certainly, Romney's remarks failed to address a recent ICE report that stipulated it would cost nearly $94 billion to detain and deport all the illegal immigrants currently living in the US (what was that about big spending?). 2-0, informed voters.
Finally, Romney articulates that "We can't have ethical standards that are a punch line for Jay Leno." To a degree, I can't take that away from the man. The biggest problem Americans (ought to) have with their political system is inadequate representation; that partisan politics, when combined with big bureaucracy, seem to upset any notion of political efficacy. But my problem isn't with what Romney said, it's how he intends to accomplish that goal. In my mind, not a single politician on either side of the political fence has done his or her part to clean up Congress' tattered reputation. And perhaps its the traditionalist in me talking, but I see lying to the voting public (what Romeny et. al. do when they mislead those who stare intently at such advertisements) as unethical as hiding thousands of dollars in your freezer.
So, it's 3-0, in that respect. Romney really misses his target. But amidst the same-old same-old that optimistic pundits constantly reassured us we would not see, it really does seem like we've lost, now doesn't it?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)