Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JDN who wrote (134043)	3/29/2001 9:10:31 AM
From: willcousa	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Candidates don't need free media. They run ads which are carefully constructed and then hide out from the general public. A little old fashioned campaigning on a face to face level would be an improvment. If a media outlet wants to cover the election then let the candidate choose some of the sound bites they run and require equal time coverage. On the funding front - let only voters contribute to campaigns. We don't need all the fancy multiple mailings, billboards, TV ads and other content poor materials. We need content. The League of Women Voters usually furnishes that in our area. Or one content rich mailing would do it. There are a lot of red herrings in this debate. One is that so much money is required. If less money were available people would have to pay more attention in order to cast a guilt free vote.

To: JDN who wrote (134043)	3/29/2001 12:22:40 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769667

I understand your thinking. But I have to disagree. Money has always been a part of our election process from the very beginning. Character matters when electing someone. One of the things I believe the media has been remiss in examining is a person character prior to an election. And I'm not talking about who-slept-with-who. I'm talking about their style of leadership, do they fire people at a whim, are they even tempered, honest, decent people. In other words, are they assholes looking for power, or are they people who can be trusted, who have the best interest of the nation at heart. It's not an exact science, but the media could certainly do a lot better than it has. Unfortunately, the major media only focus on a persons political party, instead of who they are as individuals. Term limits would help. I actually think the Democrat congress created this problem with their last "reform" measure which limited individual contributions, but not PAC contributions. On second thought, it wasn't until the Democrats found the "soft money" loophole, that PAC dollars started to flow. What's really the problem though? Is it perception, or reality? Has any politician come forward and said. "I changed my vote because I wanted to receive a PAC donation"? Has John McCain admitted as much? No, what they might say is, I think the other guy is corrupt and changes his vote based on PAC donations. Well, if they know who these people are, or think they know, stop playing good-old-boy party politics and call them on the carpet for it! Then the question is. Why don't they do this? Why don't they call fellow members of congress on the carpet for changing votes for PAC dollars? I would argue, it's because the place has become a country club for the elite, who want to receive the power and perks of the office their entire life. So, they take the path of least resistance and become a part of the system which rewards certain kinds of behavior. Remove this reward mechanism with term limits, and perhaps our perception of corruption over time would decrease as well.