Why are You People Complaining About Money Spent in the Recall Election?

18 posts / 0 new

I find it quite hilarious to hear you all crying about the money spent to win the election in Wisconsin.

I find it even funnier that none of you complained when Obama outspent McCain by about a 6 to 1 margin.

Even funnier that Obama raised more money than all candidates combined in the previous election.

Anyone want to address it or will you all pretend you don't see this thread?

DowntheMiddle
Joined:
Nov. 7, 2011 10:18 am

Comments

30 views and not one answer....

lol...pretty sad people.

DowntheMiddle
Joined:
Nov. 7, 2011 10:18 am

I'll answer, although your tone is decidedly douchebaggy. Here goes:

The fact that Obama outspent his competitor in '08 is suspicious. How did the fucking republicans, of all people, get outspent? It doesn't seem possible, given the amount of fascist money flowing through their collective hands. I say they threw the election.

My guess, if I had to make one, is that George W. had screwed things up (only from the working class perspective) so much that the republicans knew that they could not avoid taking responsibility with their guy in office. McCain could hardly blame Clinton for everything. Therefore, they chose to allow the black guy to take office without a real fight so they could begin the big conservative blame-fest. They weren't really worried that Obama might make things better enough to discredit their methods because, after all, they had the filibuster- the magic, conservative, anti-democratic conversation stopper. They could also lie with impunity.

Hell, two weeks into the Obama presidency, right wing morons were already calling W's mess the "Obama recession". Tea Partiers that were nowhere to be seen prior to the election suddenly became outraged at the massive debt. How convenient.

So, yes, the liberals don't talk a lot about the fact that Obama raised more than McCain but do talk a lot about the forces of fascism outspending the left in Wisconsin. If the Wisconsin election were as evenly funded as the 2008 election, if the republicans had only spent four times what the democratic party did, Walker might not have walked away unscathed. You and I both know that what happened in Wisconsin was not about keeping a governor in office, though. It was about something bigger. Namely, the anti-democratic "money is speech" idea that conservatives love and liberals hate.

That's why you hear so much complaining about money from liberals and not so much from conservatives. The conservatives have way more money and the liberals have way more people. Democracy doesn't work for conservatives for that reason. In a fair fight, where the truth is knowable and the voting is fair, this is a much more liberal country than the current political climate would suggest. We don't feel represented by the money and you guys do. It's pretty simple.

Hopefully, you have enough money to be valued by your side. Otherwise, you're letting the conservative string-pullers go "down the middle" on your ass. That must hurt, even outside Wisconsin. Just blame a liberal and you'll feel better.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm
Quote D_NATURED:

I'll answer, although your tone is decidedly douchebaggy. Here goes:

The fact that Obama outspent his competitor in '08 is suspicious. How did the fucking republicans, of all people, get outspent? It doesn't seem possible, given the amount of fascist money flowing through their collective hands. I say they threw the election.

My guess, if I had to make one, is that George W. had screwed things up (only from the working class perspective) so much that the republicans knew that they could not avoid taking responsibility with their guy in office. McCain could hardly blame Clinton for everything. Therefore, they chose to allow the black guy to take office without a real fight so they could begin the big conservative blame-fest. They weren't really worried that Obama might make things better enough to discredit their methods because, after all, they had the filibuster- the magic, conservative, anti-democratic conversation stopper. They could also lie with impunity.

Hell, two weeks into the Obama presidency, right wing morons were already calling W's mess the "Obama recession". Tea Partiers that were nowhere to be seen prior to the election suddenly became outraged at the massive debt. How convenient.

So, yes, the liberals don't talk a lot about the fact that Obama raised more than McCain but do talk a lot about the forces of fascism outspending the left in Wisconsin. If the Wisconsin election were as evenly funded as the 2008 election, if the republicans had only spent four times what the democratic party did, Walker might not have walked away unscathed. You and I both know that what happened in Wisconsin was not about keeping a governor in office, though. It was about something bigger. Namely, the anti-democratic "money is speech" idea that conservatives love and liberals hate.

That's why you hear so much complaining about money from liberals and not so much from conservatives. The conservatives have way more money and the liberals have way more people. Democracy doesn't work for conservatives for that reason. In a fair fight, where the truth is knowable and the voting is fair, this is a much more liberal country than the current political climate would suggest. We don't feel represented by the money and you guys do. It's pretty simple.

Hopefully, you have enough money to be valued by your side. Otherwise, you're letting the conservative string-pullers go "down the middle" on your ass. That must hurt, even outside Wisconsin. Just blame a liberal and you'll feel better.

They threw the election? Ok...again, Obama raised and spent more than all the campaigns combined in the previous election. He outspent his opponent by 4 times as much and none of you liberals ever raised the question of "buying an election" or "Citizens United" or "Money is Free Speech" or anything.Obama holds the record for the MOST MONEY ever raised and spent on a campaign in the history of this country, yet not a word, but sure, I'm a douchebag for pointing out the blatant hypocrisy. Funny how that works.

That is the question.

The only answer I get is a conspiracy theory that avoids answering the question, the rest who have viewed the post simply avoided answering it.

All we've heard from Hartmann, Schultz and the rest of the liberal pundits is about the spending...the majority of liberals upset about the outcome have done the same, yet no one wants to address this simple question.

Why is that?

DowntheMiddle
Joined:
Nov. 7, 2011 10:18 am

Six to one, four to one - the reality is more like 1.5 to 1 between Obama and McCain.

Looking at:

-- the total lack of prosecutions of warmongering war profiteers (double war crime that!)

-- a Republican (Heritage Foundation 1992 & Romneycare in MA) that guarantees income to insurance comanies and does NOT guarantee health care - and always obviously contained a sweetheart deal for big pharma.

-- no prosecution of banking fraudsters who purposefully blew up bubbles to skim fees and profits

... It seems that all that money spent on Obama was a good investment by the coprolites.

You hear the word on Obama essentially every day from Thom if you actually listen - he criticizes many of Obama's policies and can only give the Supreme Court as a positive reason to vote for Obama. And even that is a 'lesser of two evils' argument for Obama.

Really, if you listen at all, you can hear Thom attack influence of special interests and big money in politics every day... We need a constitutional amendment to establish corporations are NOT people (they have privileges not rights) and money is NOT speech (money is property, not speech - corporate speech is commercial advertising).

Go to MoveToAmend.org and take action!

LeMoyne's picture
LeMoyne
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Well first off, most of Obama's money was raised by small donations by private citizens. Secondly, the citizens united decision wasn't until after the 2008 election so that is just a moronic statement to begin with.

Maybe this will help:

http://unitedrepublic.org/2012/money-wins-the-day-in-wisconsin/?akid=123.68522.6AtZM7&rd=1&t=1

ah2
Joined:
Dec. 13, 2010 10:00 pm

I'm not complaining about how much money was spent. I'm complaining about the ratio of 7 to 1. I keep hearing that Walker wasn't worried and that all of Wisconsin was behind him. I still keep hearing that. If I knew I was in the right and that my state backed me then I wouldn't spend a penny more than the other guy. Why should I? If I'm right and the other guy is wrong and the voters are on my side then the only possibility of getting beat would be if he outspent me by quite a bit on "nasty and negative advertising". Why then did he feel the need to outspend his phony, crony opponent by such a wide margin? I think that's a legitimate question to ask Walker and I'd love to hear his answer.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 7:53 am

Here is my problem with what happened: 66% of Walkers $30.5 million came from out-of-state donors. 26% of Barretts $3.9 million came from out-of-state donors. That means that out-of -state money for the Repugs, was five times as much as Barrett had, in total, for political ads. It was out-of-state money that swayed the Wisconsin sheeple. It was a state election. Duh.

dhavid
Joined:
Jul. 16, 2010 10:41 am

It was the idiotic way the unions handled the recall, not the money. That fact has been pretty well documented by even the lefties in the democrat party. Get on the bandwagon.

THISAA's picture
THISAA
Joined:
Dec. 16, 2011 6:49 am

What bandwagon, THISAH? Bandwagons are for followers. People's movements are not organized, nor necessarily pretty, but come from deeply held beliefs. And you don't think $30 million dollars doesn't sway sheeple, who drone on TV 6 hours a night? Duh.

dhavid
Joined:
Jul. 16, 2010 10:41 am
Quote DowntheMiddle:

I find it quite hilarious to hear you all crying about the money spent to win the election in Wisconsin.

I find it even funnier that none of you complained when Obama outspent McCain by about a 6 to 1 margin.

Even funnier that Obama raised more money than all candidates combined in the previous election.

Anyone want to address it or will you all pretend you don't see this thread?

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/map/fundraising/

Has it as Obama $639 mil vs McCain $360 mil for total fundraising. Which if my math skills don't fail me, 639 is less than double McCain's 360. Which is far less than 6 to 1. Which tells me downthemiddle either "found" his numbers in his posterior, or did you have a link?

Remember, also, that much of Obama's spending was done during the primaries, when he was busy clobbering Hillary, and het huge war chest.

You are also ignoring spending by outside groups, which were largely pro business groups, which went for McCain overwhelmingly.

The problem is going to be for the big money people, that money and ads can only put so much polish on a turd. The recalls wound up being about people disapproving of the recall (some 60% of the voters, and yet Walker still only got 54% of the vote), and not that large numbers approved of Walker. Remember, Walker is still facing a criminal proceeding, so stay tuned. The video of Gov. Walker getting frog marched out will be priceless.

Phaedrus76's picture
Phaedrus76
Joined:
Sep. 14, 2010 8:21 pm
Quote dhavid:

Here is my problem with what happened: 66% of Walkers $30.5 million came from out-of-state donors. 26% of Barretts $3.9 million came from out-of-state donors. That means that out-of -state money for the Repugs, was five times as much as Barrett had, in total, for political ads. It was out-of-state money that swayed the Wisconsin sheeple. It was a state election. Duh.

2/3 of 30mil is 20, and 26% of 3.9 is about 1mil, so he got outspent 20 to 1 from out of town. Walker's money came from about 5 people, Barrett's came from 1000s. Repukes like to be ruled, and given their script. Their hope is to not have elections at all, or even legislators. Just have the kochs appoint a lord, and the serfs will serve. The walker fiefdom will return the 30 million to the divine, the fealty will be abandonment of epa, and subsidies for koch industry, and new curriculum in the education centers, including the Universities, heralding libertarianism and the contribution to history of john birchers.

The most annoying thing about post election coverage is even on MSNBC they keep quiet on the fact that the unions agreed to all the contribtions asked for, and the reductions, and the budget considerations. They just didn't agree to disallowing collective bargaining. The story is still 'he was bold', 'he saved WI'...bs...bs...bs... It was never about the budget, only about defunding democrats for ever.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Unions get paid by workers and spare changing.
Comparing them to the G-20 Corporations is typical ignorance
of the brain drained thinking they'll get tinkledown.

This only shows the lack of ethics and morals of the GOP. How many ways and how much money have they spent trying to stop Americans from voting? These are probably the plastic flag jerkers. Still sticking with the Boosh legacy of driving a stake through the heart of America. How many ways to hurt the middle class? On purpose, why do we need Al Qaeda? I have a hard time thinking about this. I don't recall a time they were so obvious and even adamant about doing harm to American citizens. Gut the work force outsourcing. Using tax dodging kickbacks to do it. Trying anything to kill the Unions and let the individual workers stand against the army of corporate lawyers bargaining for wages or even workers Comp if you get hurt on the job. Dumping hazardous waste because its cheaper. No concern for the people living in the area. Just money seems to be the driving factor. continued

How big money won the Wisconsin recall

How did Scott Walker win Wisconsin?

Gov. Scott Walker's Big Money Backers Include 13 Out-Of-State Billionaires

Scott Walker's Money Machine

Gov. Scott Walker: Follow the Money

Wisconsin, Where Money Talks and Truth Walks

Scott Walker's "Win" is not a "Win" for the people, it's a (bought) "Win" for the Koch Brothers and their Wealthy Corporate Ilk. It's a very sad day for our Republic.

This was a testing grounds for Citizens United. The test came back positive so now you will see a huge injection of money into the war to defeat Obama. If the powers that be want to spend the money then Obama doesn't have a chance. America is officially no longer a Democracy.

The New American Way - Blind Ignorance and Hate Filled Bigotry - YouTube

The high price of 'dark fusion'
Your country? Willful ignorance, stupidity. Call it what you will it is destroying the nation. Maybe has already destroyed it. Here are a few paragraphs from an Al Jazeera article by Mark LeVine. Click on the URL for the entire story. It ought to shake you up from head to toe. Anyone here remember Bradley Manning? continued...

Colorado and the Presidential Race « Drug WarRant

ECP: Stealing America: Vote By Vote

The spirit was freedom and justice
And it's keepers seem generous and kind
It's leaders were supposed to serve the country
But now they won't pay it no mind
'Cause the people grew fat and got lazy
And now their vote is a meaningless joke
They babble about law and order
But it's all just an echo of what they've been told
Yeah, there's a monster on the loose
It's got our heads into a noose
And it just sits there watchin'
~ Steppenwolf - Monster

End The Drug War, Face Jim Crow
US: Michelle Alexander: Flanders, Laura The Nation 31 Jul 2011
The NAACP has just passed a historic resolution demanding an end to the War on Drugs. The resolution comes as young black male unemployment hovers near 50 percent and the wealth gap has become a veritable gulf. So why is the forty-year-old "War on Drugs" public enemy number one for the nation's oldest civil rights organization? Well, here's why: it's not extraneous, it's central: the war on drugs is the engine of twenty-first-century discrimination--an engine that has brought Jim Crow into the age of Barack Obama.

"The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts"
~ Samuel Chase,
US Supreme Court Chief Justice 1796
"The Jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact"
~ Oliver Wendell Holme, Chief Justice
"The law itself is on trial quite as much as the case which is to be decided"
~ Judge Harlan F. Stone,
Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, 1941-1946
Anglo-Saxon common law right of claiming a "necessity" to break the law,
because doing so prevented a greater harm... ~ Rob Waddell
Jury Nullification
Canadian Jury nullification

Only registered voters are called to serve on juries. Most cannabis trials by jury are deterred by 404 gag rules and mandatory minimum sentencing. Plea bargains make up the majority along with $4500 rehabilitation facilities and urine testing, monitoring and probation costs.

FAMM
NRA Mandatory Minimum

Koch Roaches A.L.E.C. Drug Detention Centers

Forfeiture $quads

Criminal Law Reform
The Criminal Law Reform Project seeks an end to excessively harsh crime policies that result in mass incarceration and stand in the way of a just and equal society. The Project works to reduce the number of people entering jails and prisons by reforming our nation's punitive drug policies and challenging police and prosecutorial misconduct and other governmental abuses of power.

Speaking Truth to Power Works
by Giordano, stopthedrugwar.org August 06, 2011

Obama and Romney Can't Ignore Marijuana Anymore

Profound Hatred for Democracy

Obama Tilts Toward Iran Contra Gates

Chuck Norris Jumps Into Wisconsin Recall On Behalf Of Scott Walker

Booshammy

☛To secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands.
☛But the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself.
☛If you know the enemy, and know yourself, you need not fear the outcome of a hundred battles.
☛If you know yourself, but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer defeat.
☛If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.
~ The Art of War - Sun Tzu

Meet Command Central, the People in Charge of Wisconsin Voting Machines"

Emergency A Shady Deal With WI County Clerks

Obama and Romney Can't Ignore Marijuana Anymore

Profound Hatred for Democracy

Obama Tilts Toward Iran Contra Gates

Injunction, in Addition to DOJ Order, Likely Required to Stop FL GOP Purge of Voter Rolls
Despite DoJ warnings, the state of Florida has indicated they will continue to scrub voters from the rolls, despite federal law. A court order may be required to stop them...

Will CA's New 'Cajun Primary' System Allow Minority GOP To Capture Congressional Seats?
CA's New 'Top Two' Primary May Give Minority GOP Seats in Majority Dem Districts
State's new 'Cajun Primary' is a bad idea for small-"d" democracy, and Dems may well pay a price for it...

What's Florida's bigger concern: Voter fraud or suppression?

Republican 'Expert' Embarrassed on Voter Fraud

Diebold voting machines can be hacked by remote control - 2012 Elections
A laboratory shows how an e-voting machine used by a third of all voters can be easily manipulated

Diebold Accidentally Leaks Results Of 2008 Election Early

VOTING FRAUD - ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINES

Black Box Voting - America's Elections Watchdog Group
ORIGINAL STORY: Four hundred and eighty-eight voters, every one of them in the Tennessee district of US Rep Steve Cohen (D-09), all but four lifelong Democrats, and nearly all Black, had their voting history erased by Shelby County election workers, setting them up for purge from the voter list. UPDATE: I will be posting a follow up story shortly; I am pleased to see that Congressman Steve Cohen has referred this matter to the U.S. Department of Justice.

(WI) State of Wisconsin

Hotel Minibar" Keys Open Diebold Voting Machines
The access panel door on a Diebold AccuVote-TS voting machine – the door that protects the memory card that stores the votes, and is the main barrier to the injection of a virus – can be opened with a standard key that is widely available on the Internet.

Voting Fraud News
Dirty Tricks In Wisconsin: Secret Group Shuts Down Phones Of Scott Walker’s Democratic Challenger With Spam Texts 5/29/2012 Think Progress: "One week before Wisconsinites vote on whether or not to recall Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI), a conservative group is engaged in dirty tricks that have shut down the Democratic challenger’s campaign phones. According to multiple reports, independently verified by ThinkProgress, the following spam text message is being blasted out to many Wisconsin cell phones: FRM:WI@obamasaliar.c om SUBJ:Union Puppet MSG:Tom Barrett is a Union Puppet who will give Union Thugs everything they want. Call & ask why 414-271-8050 The phone number is that of Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett’s campaign headquarters. The influx of calls following this spam text message has shut down phones at Barrett’s campaign, just seven days before Election Day and right as get-out-the-vote efforts are ramping up."

Diebold Voter Fraud 2012 PT. 1 - YouTube

Daily Kos: vote fraud
☛Anchorage Proposition 5-Did Homophobes Commit Vote Fraud?
☛Proof that "voter fraud" is Jim Crow 2.0
☛Voter Fraud
☛IOIYAR-Vote Fraud Caught on Video
☛Tea Party Terrorists commit vote fraud to show vote fraud exists.
☛Busted.
☛Republicons do not care about the constitution, they pretend to. They do not care about democracy, they pretend to. There is nowhere in the Constitution that requires an ID card to vote.
☛Iowa GOP Vote Fraud? By the Iowa GOP?
☛Bob Ehrlich Can’t Turn This Vote Fraud Conviction Around
☛Hating Americans
☛Home Sweet Homes for Mitt Romney?
☛After Birthers: 10 More GOP Myths Debunked
☛Kathy Nickolaus in Waukesha forgot to save? Really?Why Prosser needed ☛EXACTLY +7500 votes....
☛Republicans Won? ACORN Strikes Again!
With all the voter fraud going on out there, we should REALLY be investigating how much fraud put Republicans over the top! I was over at TPM and read this "
☛MASSIVE VOTER FRAUD AT EDGCUMBE REC CENTER IN SAINT PAUL, MINNESOTA!!!
I didn't think this could happen in America. But it can: voter fraud. Voter fraud on a massive scale. I vote at Edgcumbe Recreation Center, in Saint Paul - a hotbed of radical liberalism.
☛IL SEN: Kirk - Minority Voter Intimidation
Illinois blogger Archpundit has the audiotape of Mark Kirk proudly boasting how he is funding the largest voter intimidation program in the past 15 years.
Diebold, return our money!

The Political Environment: Talk Radio Fuels The Myth Of Voting Fraud
This is part of an intense righty talk radio effort to frighten and gin up its conservative base on election day.
Voter Fraud Explodes in Wisconsin; Eye Witnesses Speak Out
EYEWITNESS ALLEGES DEMOCRAT UNION VOTE FRAUD
patriotupdate.com
nation.foxnews.com
thehayride.com/2012
punditpress.com
wizbangblog.com

In Wisconsin, reports of voter suppression efforts

Tell Holder: ACLU
Protect Every Citizen's Right to Vote!
Today, 30 states have passed laws requiring voters to present identification to vote, and in 15 of those states, voters must present a government-issued photo ID. These laws will result in untold numbers of legal voters being turned away from the polls because over 21 million Americans do not have government-issued photo identification. Obtaining a photo ID presents a substantial — and unnecessary — barrier for many of our nation's citizens. There is no credible evidence that in-person impersonation voter fraud — the only type of fraud that photo IDs could prevent — is even a minor problem in our country.

The attacks are not just limited to voter ID. Some states are engaging in other voter suppression tactics like restricting voter registration drives and reducing the amount of time for early voting. All these laws disfranchise eligible voters — especially racial and ethnic minorities, the elderly, low-income individuals, students, and voters with disabilities.

The Voting Rights Act vests significant authority in the Department of Justice to ensure laws are not implemented in a discriminatory manner. Because of some states' troubling history of voter suppression, any changes in their elections laws are subject to approval — or "pre-clearance" — by the Justice Department under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. In jurisdictions not covered by Section 5, the Department must ensure that these laws are implemented in a way that does not discriminate against protected groups in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

Voting Rights
Established in 1965, the ACLU Voting Rights Project has worked to protect the gains in political participation won by racial and language minorities since passage of the historic Voting Rights Act (VRA) that same year. The Project has filed more than 300 lawsuits to enforce the provisions of the VRA and the U.S. Constitution.

Voting Rights in Indian Country
A report highlighting challenges on behalf of American Indians in five western states — Colorado, Montana, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Wyoming to a variety of discriminatory election practices with special attention to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, its laws, restrictions, and rules, as well as subsequent amendments.

The Ganjawar Comes to the The Rez

Know Your Voting Rights - State by State
The Voting Rights Project of the ACLU is dedicated to providing citizens with information about and assistance in exercising their right to vote. Visit the page and click on the links for detailed information about voting in your state, and check out our quick tips for voters before you head to the polls.

I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country... Corporations have bee enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money-power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."
-- Abraham Lincoln, November 12, 1864 (atributed)

STEALING AMERICA Vote by Vote brings together behind-the-scenes perspectives from the U.S. presidential election of 2004 – plus startling stories from key races in 1996, 2000, 2002 and 2006. Unbiased and nonpartisan, the film sheds light on a decade of vote counts that don't match votes cast – uncounted ballots, vote switching, under-votes and many other examples of election totals that warrant serious investigation.

Throughout STEALING AMERICA, we hear from voters who experienced a wide range of problems, including those whose votes flipped from one candidate to another and those whose polls didn't have enough machines to serve the number of voters. Investigative journalists describe how their reportage on election fraud was sidelined. First-person citizen testimonies speak of waiting in line nine hours to vote. We hear how polling experts’ requests for essential information – such as precinct voting data necessary to examine irregularities – had been rejected, while ballots were being systematically destroyed, making audits impossible.

Stealing America: Vote By Vote.org
STEALING AMERICA unveils patterns of anomalies at every level of the electoral process. Controversial partnerships perpetuate a secretive environment, as relevant facts and figures remain hidden from view. As a result, most Americans have no real sense of the threat to free and fair elections. As seemingly unrelated pieces of the puzzle come together, a chilling picture emerges of widespread, artfully crafted "glitches" that, in the final tallies, have the capacity to alter election results.

Dorothy Fadiman invites the public to make free downloads of "Stealing America: Vote by Vote"

Ohio Election Fraud

Stealing America: Vote By Vote Part 1 of 10 U2b

2 of 10 * 3 of 10 * 4 of 10 * 5 of 10 * 6 of 10 * 7 of 10 * 8 of 10 * 9 of 10 * 10 of 10

DdC's picture
DdC
Joined:
Mar. 22, 2012 1:39 am

You guys just needed a million more dead people to vote.

THISAA's picture
THISAA
Joined:
Dec. 16, 2011 6:49 am

I am glad you find it hilarious, but perhaps you have not spoken to the right progressive or even lefty. I do have a problem with the fact that Obama raised more money than McCain. I think it is sad that anyone has to raise money to run for public office. All this money means that we don't hear a true discussion about the problems our people, nation or world faces and how candidates would like to address these problems. The fact that candidates have to raise money means they must choose how to spend that money for advertising which means that they spend the money advertising in their strongholds and battleground areas. Advertising also reduces each candidates message to only a few words that sound good in a sound bite. There is little side by side comparison and they don't actually debate what each other saids in these commercials. We need publically funded elections. We also need truth in advertising. I would like true representation on all levels of government.

Just think of the discussion of how to improve the economy and address problems with social security and medicare the president and congress have had over the past 3 years. How have they represented you? Tax cuts, unless you are paying over a $100,000 per year in taxes 1% or 2% reduction in taxes is less than $1,000.00 to $2,000.00 wow. Incentives for businessed to hire people, that's great. My favorite is let make people work longer for their social security benefits, which I get the thinking we won't have to pay out as much. What I don't get is how do you keep adding workers to a market that is already full and plan to reduce unemployment. No to all these ideas. What the majority of people need is not another tax cut but a significant raise in income, then we will spend that money that will give incentive for business to hire people. You can promote those raises by reducing the workforce by letting older workers retire, thus increasing the demand for new workers. Let us try shortening the work week, especially since even right wing talkers such as Limbaugh and Hannity say America has greater productivity than ever. A shorter work week will let us enjoy the fruits of our labor and increase demand for workers. Medicare, do you really believe all possible fixes are being discussed. I know drug cost are rising as well as the cost for other treatments, but reducing people access to healthcare is not likely the only answer. New drugs are already approved for treatment of Hepatitis C which may likely become the standard of care one cost as much as $54,000.00 per month, don't you wonder how much of that is profit and how much profit is necessary. We need to look into alternatives such as preventative care, diet and exercise, and even increased time for people to relax may reduce some of these cost going forward.

None of these ideas are really getting discussed or given much time in the media because they are not in the interest of money or profit. One more thing about all this money these candidates raise, ask yourself what might all these money had been used for if these corporations, businesses and even people used this money for if they had not felt compelled to give it to a candidate in any election? Yes I have a problem with the money that Obama raised, I have a problem with the money Walker raised. This money does not represent me, because I am not money I am a human being. You should have a problem with it too.

foxdisgusted's picture
foxdisgusted
Joined:
Jun. 8, 2012 4:29 am
Quote THISAA:

It was the idiotic way the unions handled the recall, not the money. That fact has been pretty well documented by even the lefties in the democrat party. Get on the bandwagon.

It's the DEMOCRATIC party. Get on the English bandwagon.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm
Quote DowntheMiddle:
Quote D_NATURED:

I'll answer, although your tone is decidedly douchebaggy. Here goes:

The fact that Obama outspent his competitor in '08 is suspicious. How did the fucking republicans, of all people, get outspent? It doesn't seem possible, given the amount of fascist money flowing through their collective hands. I say they threw the election.

My guess, if I had to make one, is that George W. had screwed things up (only from the working class perspective) so much that the republicans knew that they could not avoid taking responsibility with their guy in office. McCain could hardly blame Clinton for everything. Therefore, they chose to allow the black guy to take office without a real fight so they could begin the big conservative blame-fest. They weren't really worried that Obama might make things better enough to discredit their methods because, after all, they had the filibuster- the magic, conservative, anti-democratic conversation stopper. They could also lie with impunity.

Hell, two weeks into the Obama presidency, right wing morons were already calling W's mess the "Obama recession". Tea Partiers that were nowhere to be seen prior to the election suddenly became outraged at the massive debt. How convenient.

So, yes, the liberals don't talk a lot about the fact that Obama raised more than McCain but do talk a lot about the forces of fascism outspending the left in Wisconsin. If the Wisconsin election were as evenly funded as the 2008 election, if the republicans had only spent four times what the democratic party did, Walker might not have walked away unscathed. You and I both know that what happened in Wisconsin was not about keeping a governor in office, though. It was about something bigger. Namely, the anti-democratic "money is speech" idea that conservatives love and liberals hate.

That's why you hear so much complaining about money from liberals and not so much from conservatives. The conservatives have way more money and the liberals have way more people. Democracy doesn't work for conservatives for that reason. In a fair fight, where the truth is knowable and the voting is fair, this is a much more liberal country than the current political climate would suggest. We don't feel represented by the money and you guys do. It's pretty simple.

Hopefully, you have enough money to be valued by your side. Otherwise, you're letting the conservative string-pullers go "down the middle" on your ass. That must hurt, even outside Wisconsin. Just blame a liberal and you'll feel better.

They threw the election? Ok...again, Obama raised and spent more than all the campaigns combined in the previous election. He outspent his opponent by 4 times as much and none of you liberals ever raised the question of "buying an election" or "Citizens United" or "Money is Free Speech" or anything.Obama holds the record for the MOST MONEY ever raised and spent on a campaign in the history of this country, yet not a word, but sure, I'm a douchebag for pointing out the blatant hypocrisy.

I said your TONE was "douchebaggy" but if you want to own that label to your core, I won't stop you. There is no hypocricy because liberals have always complained about the influence of money in our political system..even the liberals that founded this country.

Funny how that works.

I don't see the humor.

Look, dude, you came in here spectulating that liberals were "crying" more about the political money in Wisconsin than they did about Obama's spending. That's a lie. Lefties have been complaining about the corrosive, anti-democratic, money-is-speech situation for decades or centuries. However, if you can show how your post was any less speculative than mine, I'm listening.

That is the question.

The only answer I get is a conspiracy theory that avoids answering the question, the rest who have viewed the post simply avoided answering it.

It's not a conspiracy theory, it's a possible explanation that YOU asked for. Do you believe the republicans can be outspent? Are you even aware of how ridiculous that idea is when they openly represent the top couple of percent, who control more wealth than the rest of us? I think you're kidding yourself if you think the Republicons put their best candidates on the ticket in 2008. If you really believe that McCain/ Palin was a winning ticket, then I appologize for the "douchebaggy" statement and will, instead, say this.

You are utterly naieve and, possibly, willfully ignorant.

All we've heard from Hartmann, Schultz and the rest of the liberal pundits is about the spending...the majority of liberals upset about the outcome have done the same, yet no one wants to address this simple question.

Why is that?

I addressed that. We, the liberal hoard, are concerned that when money becomes free political speech, it takes democracy away from people (as insane an idea as that is) and turns it into a plutocracy or an oligarchy or whatever term you prefer to describe the aggrigate wealth and power for which conservtives advocate.

Your question was not so challenging that any third grader couldn't answer it, provided their last name isn't Bush or Romney. And, it was a stupid, insensitive and invective-laden question given the larger issue of, why the hell is money such an integral part of a process that is intended to give a voice to poor people and rich people alike? Where is the equality and justice in that?

Now it's your turn to answer.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm

I see you have no answer. That's what I thought.

D_NATURED's picture
D_NATURED
Joined:
Oct. 20, 2010 8:47 pm

Currently Chatting

Time to Rethink the War on Terror

Thom plus logo

When Eric Holder eventually steps down as Attorney General, he will leave behind a complicated legacy, some of it tragic, like his decision not to prosecute Wall Street after the financial crisis, and his all-out war on whistleblowers like Edward Snowden.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system