Of course I don't care how much the candidates raise for their campaigns (they have a right to raise as much money as they want) but, at best, this fundraising stuff has reached the silly point; and, more importantly, the 24/7 fundraising has a giant cost for the American people, and I don't mean money cost, but lost opportunity and time. We need better from our candidates.
The two presidential candidates are spending most of their time fundraising. They are spending their time with only the rich and/or celebrities... or coming up with game show ideas where people can win a chance for a celebrity style dinner. Is that what America needs right now and most? No.
Regrettably this is how presidential campaigning is done (fundraising, fundraising, and more) so of course no one steps back and thinks how absurd it is, and what a missed opportunity it is for candidates to enlighten the American people about themselves and their ideas. No candidate dares to look for a new campaign model that could really enhance the democratic process. Instead we are left with the current one which makes our candidates look like hucksters.
With all that is going on in the world, would it not be great if the candidates stopped the 'speed dating' fundraising and really talked to America and listened to America -- not with and to just the ones with the wallets open?
Think of the time both are spending schmoozing to raise money, giving the same tired rah rah speech several times a day, every day of the week. The press pool that shadows each has heard the same speeches so often that they can probably lip sync the fundraising speeches along with the candidates.
More significantly, think what COULD be done with that time by the candidates. President Obama has a full-time job (Syria? The economy? Even the Sudan? Or making friends with Congress?) and perhaps Gov. Romney could visit some inner-city and talk to people who are really desperate and find out what it would take to motivate them and revitalize their communities and schools. They matter, too.
Or how about both candidates doing something really daring like visiting states that are not "swing states" but where other Americans live with real problems, too? That would be a hint that the candidate really cares about what is going on in the lives of Americans -- not just the lives of those in swing states that strategically advance their political careers.
In May, President Obama raised $60 million and Gov. Romney raised $76 million. That is a lot of money. They raised a lot in the months before May, too. They do need some money, but how much more do they really need? Do they need to raise that much every month? The answer to that question is to look at how most of it is spent. Most of that money goes to airing and making TV ads! TV ads are very, very expensive... but are the ads really needed to get a candidate's message out? Nope... not at all.
Both candidates can get all the attention they want -- FREE -- by interviewing with the media -- TV or print. Think about it: every single news organization in the country (local, state and national) is dying to get even a 15-minute interview with a presidential candidate. There is not one inch of the country that can't be reached with a free interview. The candidates' reps just have to pick up the phone and on a minute's notice can get any interview, any place, any time. And what happens to the interviews? Other news organizations then report about them so the candidate gets even more mileage out of the original interview... and yes, it's free. It doesn't cost a dime!
So why do the candidates focus on fundraising and ignore the free media? Well... the cynic in me says because it is harder to lie in an interview. A good interview -- and it can be polite -- is not a one way street like a candidate controlled ad. An interview is not programmed by the candidate and so the candidate can't be exactly sure what will be asked.
It is also harder to take a pot shot at your opponent in an interview or place things out of context that smear your opponent. In an interview with a journalist, you look petty taking the pot shot but in a slick ad you can really do damage -- including unfair damage -- from afar. It is not that much different than waging a war by a drone than by hand-to-hand combat.
Yes, I know the cynic in you is now saying that the candidates would only look for friendly interviews that are soft -- that may be true, but that is far better than nothing, which is what the slick ads are.
But I think the American people would get much more out of many, many FREE interviews with candidates than the entertaining, slick and insulting ads.
What do you think?
Cross-posted from GretaWire.
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
Thanks to her fawning promotion of political grifter Sarah Palin, van Susteren has permanently lost what little credibility she ever had as a pundit.
Here she's complaining about Obama and Romney "schmoozing to raise money, giving the same tired rah rah speech several times a day" ...
And yet she's helped non-candidate Palin fill her PAC's coffers by spreading vicious lies and barely-concealed racism ... ???
Congratulation, Greta, on setting a new world's record for HYPOCRICY !
Anybody remember the Lyndon Johnson ad that tied Barry Goldwater to atomic war?
Anybody remember the Willie Horton ad that Bush 41 ran over and over to make Dukakis look soft on crime?
It will take both sides to come to a solution - unilateral disarmament would only result in defeat for the candidate who tries to play fair. And it won't happen in this election cycle.
What's in it for TV? They're making millions of dollars, there is no financial incentive to stop it. They even make money talking about how bad the current situation is.
1) The candidates rightfully question the objectivity of not only the interviewer, but even more the organization behind them.
2) The fear going off message from the carefully crafted and scripted narrative created by both their campaign staff and the media empires that support them.
3) They know that the media will endlessly repeat and disect their television advertisements to an audience who is not skipping commercials via the DVR.
4) They are marketing a poll-driven, media obsessed image.
5) They are cowards.
You know that every Congressman needs a couple millions dollars to get re-elected every 24 months. Translation: a) fundraising has become their #1 job, and b) this has resulted in a consequential obligation to serve their donors rather than their constituency.
Add the Citizens United decision and you have a bloodless takedown of a functioning democracy.
The fact that all of this has bubbled up to the presidency is merely a symptom of a much larger problem.
You have put your finger on it in this article......but you're not going the last mile to identify the culprit.
Why not, Greta? Is it because of what Mr. Ailes might say?
Pardon me, but I can't take this woman has said seriously.
However, when she wrote : " President Obama has a full-time job (Syria? The economy? Even the Sudan? Or making friends with Congress?) ... " much of her argument was shot into the water, because it turned the need for campaign reform in general into a 2012 specific issue.
Also, regarding her statement about President Obama, why is she writing this instead of producing her show? Oh? You can do both at the same time because you have people working for you that are in charge of different things? Well, guess what GVS, the President has many MORE people working for him that are working on those exact things you think that the POTUS needs to spend all his time on personally 24/7. And, as far as making friends in Congress, he has certainly tried, but has failed due to the obstuctionist nature of the GOP. Perhaps you missed that if you only listened to your fellow employees there at FoxEntertainment.
As far as "free interviews go", it also depends on who is interviewing and what their agenda is when it comes to whether to accept or decline an invitation, doesn't it?
She is not convincing in this innocent routine.
In your intro: "Of course I don't care how much the candidates raise for their campaigns (they have a right to raise as much money as they want)..." When YOU DON'T CARE how much candidates (congressional or presidential or judicial) raise money, you were already wrong!
What is the true bottom line of an election for a candidate? It's first to win the election and to be re-elected time and again.
Politicians and their supporters, mostly Republic'CONS' were out in force against the Feingold-McCain campaign finance reform. Media like Fox, and you are part of it, is an extension mouthpiece of the Republic'CONS' ideology is no exception.
Our political system is broken and we all know it. It's no longer a democracy but a plutocracy!
Another thing that would help is to abolish the Electoral College system, so the President is elected by a national popular vote. Nothing would change, except in the rare elections that are so close that one candidate gets 49.9% of the popular vote but 51% of the Electoral College, such as Bush v. Gore.
Then instead of only having to campaign for Electoral Votes in the swing states, each candidate would have to compete for every vote in every state.
For 50 cents per voter, each candidate could produce a 60 minute DVD of himself, or herself, explaining why he, or she, should be elected, and mail it to every registered voter in the US. They would have to campaign for all the independent and crossover votes, they couldn't get away with just preaching to the choir.
Maybe we should require them to do this.