Saturday, July 07, 2007

More Than The Money Primary

How and why does money translate into votes?

It doesn't have to.

It's really very simple. The people with the most money can afford more airtime and are given much more, free of charge on Cabal news. The media thus decides whom we can vote for in the general election. Everyone wants to vote for a winner, no matter that he or she may not have their best interests at heart. The media is more than happy to tell you who those people are, on both sides of the insane duality-lie of a political system with which we are cursed. They are the ones with all the money, usually an indication that they are corporate-approved

We have taken to paying attention to: (It goes without saying that we must believe in his/her message and more, we have to have some faith that he or she can and will carry out the plan)

1) Of whom does the media, especially the obvious right-wing media, constantly make fun? This candidate is probably the biggest threat to corporate interests, not ours.

2) What is the ratio of donors to total money raised. If the candidate is not getting most or a huge percentage of his/her money from grassroots, individual donors, they are corporate approved.

3) According to polls, can the candidate beat any Republican in the general election, providing Republican machines are not doing the vote counting and the candidate is not a gutless wonder who will refuse to fight for our votes even if it takes months and an all-out revolution?

Right now, the one candidate who meets all of our standards is John Edwards

More Than The Money Primary -

But grassroots activists should ask themselves a question about the money primary?

Why are the frontrunners raising so much money? Is it because they have the best ideas? The best bases of support?

Hardly. Clinton, who has been the strongest figure in the recent Democratic debates, is raising her money in big chunks from many of the same business interests that backed George W. Bush and other Republicans. Obama has a broader pool of givers, but the attraction seems to be his personal dynamism rather than his soft stands on the issues and his tepid debate performances — and he, too, is attracting a good deal of so-called “establishment” money.

In fact, as Republican presidential contenders struggle to keep up with the Democrats in the fund-raising race, there is much evidence to suggest that big-money interests are moving their chips to the Democratic table and placing their bets on Clinton and to a somewhat lesser extent on Obama.

Clinton and Obama are acceptable to those interests.

Edwards, in contrast, has taken strong stands and attracted a substantial number of small contributors. Unfortunately for Edwards, many of his strong stands challenge corporate power — in ways that neither Clinton or Obama has so far done.

No comments: