New Hampshire Nonsense
1/9/2008 Early Morning Semi-Editorial:
(Did anyone see any street brawls between the Clinton supporters at Buskers vs. the Obama supporters at Texas Arizona last night?)
Many of you may be serious politicos that get all super-involved in the 2008 race to the Oval Office. You may support a particular candidate, “believe” what they say, and get mesmerized by their “powerful” words.
I don’t buy any of it.
Now that doesn’t mean I won’t have anything to say about it. I had a really long editorial written about my feelings towards national politics as we now know it, but it’s complicated and is riddled with too much common sense to publish today. Maybe another time.
However, here are some observations and quick questions for you (after last night’s New Hampshire Primary):
One Associated Press headline said “Clinton and McCain pull off upsets in NH.” Who the hell said it was an “upset?” The people voted, and this was the result. This, in my opinion is media manipulation.
In sports, it’s considered an “upset” when a team with a worse record, less skilled players beats a statistically better team that has played exceptionally well comparatively. There is some kind of proof, tangible numbers, actual documented events. In this case, I suppose they’re saying “upset” because THE POLLS indicated otherwise. They say “upset” to make the victorious candidates seem weaker, less popular. It’s not the most accurate word they could have used.
Here is why I believe it to be manipulative:
- The media plays a humongous role in feeding the general public with information. Do you think they have some special interest to promote one candidate over another?
- They’ve been known to give certain candidates less air time than others (such as Ron Paul for instance.) Obviously they want to make money, so they too, jump on the bandwagon of what’s most popular, otherwise their viewership declines. Does money have anything to do with this whole race for power?
- The Justin Timberlake Effect. Most common people have a tough time making their own minds up, and like lemmings, they follow the crowd, or “what’s popular.” If certain groups, or media organizations create these polls to make it appear that one candidate is a “sure winner,” then by gosh, they better vote for what most other people are voting for! Do you think polls are rigged to help one candidate or another?
There are many other theories out there, but enough of the media for now. I’m tired.
Lastly, does anyone know how much all candidates are predicted to spend during the 2008 campaigns? Or how much was spent (total) in 2004?
I don’t know about you guys, but I don’t feel so swell about the ability for some candidates to raise more money than others. Like salary cap in football, there should be some kind of contribution cap as well. Once you reach that cap, you’re done taking money (or it gets given to a charity or back to the people.)
At this point, give all candidates (let’s say, who met certain criteria) an equal opportunity to promote their ideas on say, Network TV or something similar? Why all the continual advertising, mailers, signs, and total waste? They should be allowed to mail ONE black & white brochure out with reasons people should vote for them. Additionally, it should be mandatory that each newspaper, magazine or public TV channel DONATE a certain amount of space to each candidate on a periodic basis (every week or so.)
Buying votes because you have more money seems a bit unfair to me. What are your thoughts?