Let's just dip our fingers in purple ink and pose for photos now that voting has the same significance for us as it had for those Iraqis who got conned into thinking they were participating in some grand democratic experiment.
Our own elections, the ones our government has modeled for the world, are a hoax. What other word should we use to describe this year's presidential election, whose outcome will turn on which party's super PACs gets the most generous bribes from billionaires? The Republicans, enabled by decisions of a Supreme Court they still control, were the first out of the gate and are far more culpable in destroying our system of popular governance. But the Democrats, no less committed to winning at any cost to political principle, have now jumped in.
The generally reserved New York Times editorial page responded to the Obama campaign's decision to seek Super PAC funding with a scathing editorial headlined "Another Campaign for Sale." The Times reminded that Barack Obama, in his State of the Union speech two years ago, called out the Supreme Court justices sitting before him over their decision to free special interests from campaign spending limits. "I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests," Obama said then. "They should be decided by the American people." But sadly, as the Times editorial noted this week, "On Monday, the President abandoned that fundamental principle and gave in to the culture of the Citizens United decision that he once denounced as a 'threat to our democracy.' "
Monday was the day the Obama campaign sent out an e-mail announcing that members of the president's administration would solicit funds for Priorities USA Action, one of the super PACs that can now, thanks to the Supreme Court decisions that Obama had castigated, raise unlimited funds in an effort to sway the election.
Just as the super political action committee supporting Republican primary contender Newt Gingrich had raised $10 million from Nevada gambling kingpin Sheldon Adelson and his wife, The Wall Street Journal reported that the Obama campaign set its sights on media mogul Haim Saban.
A backer of Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries in 2008, Saban had not subsequently supported Obama because of criticisms over the president's actions toward Israel. Perhaps because the president has done nothing to effectively pressure the Israeli government to make any concessions toward Palestinian self-determination, Saban recently made his first contribution to Obama and in a written statement Tuesday said, "We are looking at all the Super PACs at the moment, will surely participate, but haven't decided on the details."
Saban may be one of the more idealistic mega-donors the pro-Obama Priorities USA Action PAC is now courting. Less savory, if one cares about the hold that Wall Street has exerted over this administration, are some of the top donors Obama aides met with Tuesday to urge that they contribute to the PAC. The list included Hamilton E. James, the president of the huge private equity firm Blackstone, and Robert Wolf, the chairman of UBS Group Americas.
Not that the Republicans should worry, since their list of super PAC supporters is far more powerful. To date, the pro-Democrat PACs have collected a paltry $19 million as compared with the $91 million raised last year by committees controlled by Karl Rove and the allies of the Republican presidential candidates. This disparity is the president's justification for abandoning his principled opposition to such groups. "We're not going to fight this fight with one hand tied behind our back," said Jim Messina, Obama's campaign manager. "With so much at stake, we can't allow for two sets of rules. Democrats can't be unilaterally disarmed."
That argument would be more compelling if not for the fact that it was the Republican presidential nominee, John McCain, who "disarmed" by accepting public funding in the last election. Obama subverted what remained of political campaign finance reform by turning instead to private contributions, with the result that major Wall Street interests greatly financed his victory. It is not entirely true that shunning the PACs would have left the president at a disadvantage, since he commands predominant media space by virtue of his office. He could have exploited the fat-cat contributions to Republicans as confirmation that they are servants of the 1 percent that has caused the rest of us so much misery. Once again he has failed to take that case for economic justice to the American people and instead validated the Republican assault on what remains of our democracy.
Ruth Conniff: Progressive Wisconsin Democrats Resist The Super PAC Route
 |
 |
|
| 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 |
Both parties act as a single unified group against the people of this country by polarizing the voters and media into thinking there are sides to an issue when for elected employees the purpose of an issue is to get them elected and then to be maintained for the next election.For the elected employees losing an election is like losing a football game, there’s another coming up soon and there is always an appointment, but the purpose of government is to maintain, nurture and grow issues for election.
Obama fuels a racial component that distracts people from the issues, which is another stroke of genius by the wealthy. All of the money is spent, our civil rights gone, yet the people focus and name call on meaningless racial issues. Pure genius.
Because you are wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_%28United_States%29
Another reason not to vote: It DOES NOT MATTER who gets elected,I swear it to you. These twisted products of inbreeding (politicians) are being supported by campaign contributions from corporations who want the laws to be advantageous to them. The best way to ensure you get your way is to PAY BOTH CANDIDATES. In other words, elections are semantic, and only settle whether the corruption your are guaranteed to get is flavored sour or bitter, Republican or Democrat.
The founding fathers themselves stated that a two-party system reduced the voter to choosing the lesser of two evils. The problem with US elections: They are OWNED by business, and fixed by politicians who make the rules for how one gets into their position. If you think redistricting is not electoral cheating, then WTF is ?!?!
The system is absolutely broken, and needs to be thrown away, so we can find something which works FOR THE ELECTORATE, but that isn't going to happen, so I opt out, making me the worst offender of all. Voter apathy is the reason we're in this mess to start with, but I can't be the only one who cares, so I truly do not.
The Republicans try to claim all of the Obama disappointment without acknowledging the fact that at least a third of that comes from the left of Obama. He is misinformed by his centrist and pro-corporatist advisers who do not realize that a firm Progressive program, ditching the private health insurance mandate meme and embracing Medicare for all will give him up to 60% pay off in November.
As long as corp. are people, whoever collects the most money must be the most popular.
Why does more money translate into more votes? He who can buy 100 ads will be voted for, he who can buy only 10 has no thoughts worth looking at? Really weird. Theoretically, you could just tally the ledgers and he/she who has the biggest (sum total) can be declared POTUS.
Just the other day I read that Santorum will now have more success in getting money after he'd won those States. He is not honoured with more money because he wants to do the right things, no, just because jumping on the band wagon is what people do who have left their brain in the cloak room.
Americans are entitled to any circus that pleases them, but the problem is that other nations are supposed to applaud and imitate it.