Political Irony

8 Comments

1. Dan wrote:

   Palin still “exploring?” Guess she’s waiting until the day before the Iowa caucus so she doesn’t have to look ignorant/crazy, or give up her “day job” of spreading propaganda without scrutiny. More fund raising will certainly go a long way to making sure she’s well dressed. She won’t run, she’s making too much money, which is why she quit her low pay political job in the first place.

   Monday, September 26, 2011 at 8:47 am | Permalink
2. PatriotSGT wrote:

   “Republican campaigns seem to have lots of money”, and 35,000 a plate to have dinner with the Pres or VP isn’t alot of money?

   Monday, September 26, 2011 at 10:46 am | Permalink
3. Jeff wrote:

   Obama’s going to fundraisers that cost people 35K a plate. GOPers aren’t doing that because they don’t have to. They’ve all got their SuperPAC’s that are raising money for them. They don’t want/need money from people who can be seen as beneficiaries. Anonymous money comes with no visible strings, and they get so much more of it.

   Maybe this is why the GOP aren’t bothering to do anything about jobs. They know they’ll still be getting plenty of cash from the hidden benefactors, and so it doesn’t really bother them if the people are all out of work.

   Monday, September 26, 2011 at 11:21 am | Permalink
4. Fallon wrote:

   “Obama’s going to fundraisers that cost people 35K a plate.”

   Why is Obama trying to raise $1Billion? ‘Cause, he can. You can’t be so ideologically blind not to see that to both sides cash is king, can you?

   Tuesday, September 27, 2011 at 12:03 pm | Permalink
5. Iron Knee wrote:

   The problem is not that “to both sides cash is king”. The problem is that to the voters, having the cash to buy TV time (or buy whole TV networks) is what gets their votes.

   Tuesday, September 27, 2011 at 12:50 pm | Permalink
6. PatriotSGT wrote:

   I have to differ with you IK. I have never voted for someone, and I am a voter, because of how much money they have or raise. I do know some voters though who vote for people based on looks or “acting” presidential. They don’t look at the substance or experience of a candidate, just what party they belong to and how they look and act.
   I think tough and spirited campaigns are not a bad thing, it lets the voter really see what the candidate thinks and proposes, good and bad. Theres no perfect candidate, or they’re not telling the truth, so one must decide on the one with the most characteristics that match their wants in an elected official.

   Personally, I’d be for campaign reform that did away with all private donations and gave each candidate the same amount of public money and commercial ads and time. Not to who has the most money. The rest should be all volunteer work, no more who can afford the best campaign manager. You like your candidate, voluteer your time.

   Tuesday, September 27, 2011 at 1:22 pm | Permalink
7. Iron Knee wrote:

   PatriotSgt, you misunderstand me (or worse). It isn’t about the money they raise, it is about the messages they are able to get out there (with that money). If you think you are not influenced by those messages, you are naive or deluded.

   But I do agree with the idea of volunteering time. I volunteered 6 months of my time during the 2008 election (not including doing this blog). Unfortunately, even volunteering takes money, and volunteers can be sponsored by churches, corporations, unions, or other organizations. So I’m not sure that would work either. It is a tough problem. And even if you came up with a solution that would work, there is no way it would get implemented (too much vested interest against it).

   Tuesday, September 27, 2011 at 1:57 pm | Permalink
8. PatriotSGT wrote:

   You’re right on IK. The other one is the “Paid for by Friends of Candidate X”. They don’t even have to answer to what they say or show.

   Tuesday, September 27, 2011 at 2:58 pm | Permalink