Quote:
Originally Posted by loquitur
Ah, I see, Will. So once again the lefty solution is to pull down the monetarily successful person rather than to urge the less successful one to do better.
|
I will never understand why the right worships the rich. The fact that Meg Whitman has more money than Jerry Brown does not mean she is more suited to be governor. Unfortunately, it does mean she can afford to spend $140 million of her own money to launch a state of the art campaign with many of the best analysts and pr folks in the game. It does mean launching her campaign months before Brown because, hey, she can afford it. It does mean breaking a record for campaign spending, outspending even Mayor Bloomberg.
The "pulling down" you mention is at its core actually an attempt to shift the focus of campaigns away from media blitzes and toward the actual candidates. Issue vs. issue, qualifications vs. qualifications, plan vs. plan, the democratic process should be about two or more individuals with the ability to do the job attempting to explain to the voters what they would do if given the opportunity to represent them. It should be a fair race between people who can easily run on their qualifications and plans.
Quote:
Originally Posted by loquitur
Though Brown does seem to be doing ok in the election - proving once again that union clout is more powerful than mere money - evening the playing field isn't just a matter of dollars and cents.
|
There are plenty of unions in California that have thrown their weight behind Whitman, particularly police and firefighters unions which have a great deal of political power in the state.
Quote:
Originally Posted by loquitur
When you're ready to outlaw union involvement, come back and we'll talk about public funding.
|
Public funding means no money from corporations or unions.