The latest oil slick
When a person opens up a wallet, pocketbook, or purse and hands over a sum of money, they're usually expecting to get something in return. If they expect nothing, it's called charity. And there is no charity in political fundraising.First quarter financial figures came out last week, and Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama led the way on the Democratic side, with John Edwards a few paces behind. Nearly doubling the overall totals of the top tier Republican candidates, the party was cast as a momentary victor by the national news media, which covers political campaigns as it would an auto or horse race-- to be decided by raised money, achieved media exposure, and the absence of any major verbal faux pas on the stump, not as a campaign of specific ideas.
Aside from the fact that the lead horse, Hillary Clinton, shifted millions from her Senate re-election war chest into her presidential campaign to pad her numbers, the most-strikingly absent element of the reportage was regarding where the money has come from and what it may be buying. Arianna Huffington reported yesterday on the Senate Democrats who have worked to crush the Democratic House majority's attempt to stop a $10 billion cash windfall for Big Oil on drilling leases. Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico and Diane Feinstein of California say, instead, there needs to be a bureaucratic overhaul on leases that would be backed by the Bush Administration, losing touch with the fact that the Administration itself is but a wholly-owned subsidiary of Big Oil. The oil industry spent $72.5 million lobbying Congress last year, and according to Huffington, Bingaman received a larger piece of that contribution pie than any other Democrat in the Senate.
"These pols," writes Huffington, "are the political equivalent of Carmela Soprano-- enjoying the spoils while denying the dirty business that makes the spoils possible. On second thought, at least Carmela allows a moment of doubt to creep in now and then. Do our politicians?"
And now it's the Democrats who are leading the way in making President Bush's destructive tax cuts permanent, and specifically for those with incomes over $50,000. What differences are left between the two parties? Few, other than the segment of the population they attempt to flatter with their hollow rhetoric.
---
By the way, it was a killer first episode of "The Sopranos" last night. It seems the final season will not be a disappointment. I'm watching soap operas though this afternoon, before the Cards game at Pittsburgh, and it dawns on me that "Sopranos" creator David Chase dropped the ball in never casting Susan Lucci in his series. That woman is still as gorgeous as ever. Tony would never be able to resist her, and we would have a difficult time faulting him for his weakness.
---
Comedian Bill Maher is consistently correct, and always entertaining, but he's wrong that Democratic presidential candidates like Barack Obama and John Edwards reinforce the "pussy" smear against the party by refusing to participate in a televised debate on Fox News. There's simply not a meaningful chance of winning over a segment of the voting population that supports George W. Bush in even greater numbers than does the group that would outlaw the teaching of evolution in public schools. Fox News is the engine that propelled "Bush/Cheney Inc." into the White House. It fueled the Congressional backing of their full agenda, and it continues to push it forward with a whitewashing of the devastation in Iraq and CEO Rupert Murdoch's financial support for Hillary Clinton, the Democrats' least principled and most polarizing primary candidate.
There's a myth of equal time during live televised debates. The panelists set the agenda, answers are limited to brief and meaningless soundbites, and other network commentators, besides the panelist(s), are allowed to spin the results in the immediate aftermath. In this case, to demean and slander. News organizations can only succeed behind the claim and public confidence of impartiality. This is the reason the Air America radio network has been doomed from the start. Soft-core Democrats legitimized Fox News from its infancy, and progressives are still paying a severe price for their doing so. Holding a televised debate on Fox News is not the equivalent of going into the other team's ballpark in sports and winning a road game, as Maher and others would suggest. It's the equivalent of walking into a casino and putting a large wager up against the house. Fighting a losing battle in the face of thorough and long-term devastation in return for a brief and empty display of political courage is not a winning campaign strategy, it's our policy in Iraq.
posted by CM @ 11:48 AM
2 Comments:
CM, you are exactly right on your answer to the differences that are left between the two parties. However, I guess it should be expected considering that they are both seeking a plurality of votes from the same population.
Ever wonder why the last two US Presidential elections have been so incredibly close? In this information age the political strategists and the media are so good at manipulating the sheep that still bother to vote its scary. I bet we’ll never again even come close to seeing another Reagan-Mondale type “landslide” presidential election. The biggest problem for the two parties must be how to convince the masses that there is in fact a difference.
We should have to pass a test that proves that we can think for ourselves before we are allowed to vote. Instead Iowa is going completely the other way by allowing same day registration and voting. Do we really want people who can’t plan ahead 28 days (or whatever the number is) choosing our leaders for the next 2-6 years?
TA
That first part of that is dead on. They could conceivably all be close presidential elections from now on. The two parties hire the same consultants, and the same group of people cut the checks.
But if people aren't paying attention, that's a product of that disenfranchisement. It's caused by the attitute that both sides are screwing you, which is difficult to dispute.
We need to make it as easy as possible to cast ballots to reduce voter fraud.
Post a Comment
<< Home