Gary Hart: Billion-dollar Clinton campaign should 'frighten' Americans
- Thread starter BamaPokerplayer
- Start date
Likw many of today's politicians, they have no intention of winning elections. They would rather buy them.
That was a great article. I believe that this is a problem, just not sure there is anyway to solve it.
Hart is right about how money corrupts the process, but he's wrong about nearly everything else in that article.
1) His call for specificity is laughable. Here's a guy who ran for President and used the slogan "new ideas," and all it was was a slogan. It was so shallow that in 1984 Mondale buried him by using the then-famous "where's the beef" line from the Wendy's commercial. Hart talked about "new ideas" as a concept but hardly had anything specific at all to say. Furthermore, basic politics 101 is that you say as little as possible. The moment you get specific, the group who is going to be hurt by your proposals begins screaming bloody murder. Ronald Reagan probably lost the 1976 GOP nomination because of a $90 billion transfer of responsibility from the federal government to the states - which would have caused New Hampshire to invoke a state income tax.
2) Do you really expect a former Democratic Senator and campaign manager of the inept McGovern campaign to actually say his opposing party has anyone qualified to be President? And who died and made Hart such an arbiter? And his observation that the GOP was once inclusive but now isn't is eminently laughable. The GOP of the 1980s was no more "inclusive" then than it is today; it's just that the voters thought Reagan was a better alternative than Carter or Mondale and Bush better than Dukakis (and the voters - dumb as they are - were right on all 3 instances). The GOP never held the House during that entire time but did hold the Senate for six years, primarily because of winning virtually every close race in 1980 when the hostage crisis, staglfation, and Cold War had a lot of people in fear. The fact is that Rick Santorum (just to use an example) was in the Senate just as long as Hart and represented a MUCH larger state AND his party was in the majority his entire time in DC (with the exception of the Jeffords jump in 2001-02), meaning he had more say in things.
If Santorum isn't qualified today then neither was Hart but nobody thinks he's saying that now do they? (I'm not arguing in favor of Santorum, I'm just pointing out Hart's inconsistency). There's plenty of them I wouldn't vote for but to call them "unqualified" is amusing coming from Hart. And the Senate is lower in person to person quality? I doubt this (not that I think it's any higher).
That said, Hart's central premise is correct and frightening, but it's also why nobody should be getting all excited about an Elizabeth Warren candidacy. Without money she isn't going to win - and I hope nobody seriously thinks she's NOT going to take money from the same people she will allegedly go after.
1) His call for specificity is laughable. Here's a guy who ran for President and used the slogan "new ideas," and all it was was a slogan. It was so shallow that in 1984 Mondale buried him by using the then-famous "where's the beef" line from the Wendy's commercial. Hart talked about "new ideas" as a concept but hardly had anything specific at all to say. Furthermore, basic politics 101 is that you say as little as possible. The moment you get specific, the group who is going to be hurt by your proposals begins screaming bloody murder. Ronald Reagan probably lost the 1976 GOP nomination because of a $90 billion transfer of responsibility from the federal government to the states - which would have caused New Hampshire to invoke a state income tax.
2) Do you really expect a former Democratic Senator and campaign manager of the inept McGovern campaign to actually say his opposing party has anyone qualified to be President? And who died and made Hart such an arbiter? And his observation that the GOP was once inclusive but now isn't is eminently laughable. The GOP of the 1980s was no more "inclusive" then than it is today; it's just that the voters thought Reagan was a better alternative than Carter or Mondale and Bush better than Dukakis (and the voters - dumb as they are - were right on all 3 instances). The GOP never held the House during that entire time but did hold the Senate for six years, primarily because of winning virtually every close race in 1980 when the hostage crisis, staglfation, and Cold War had a lot of people in fear. The fact is that Rick Santorum (just to use an example) was in the Senate just as long as Hart and represented a MUCH larger state AND his party was in the majority his entire time in DC (with the exception of the Jeffords jump in 2001-02), meaning he had more say in things.
If Santorum isn't qualified today then neither was Hart but nobody thinks he's saying that now do they? (I'm not arguing in favor of Santorum, I'm just pointing out Hart's inconsistency). There's plenty of them I wouldn't vote for but to call them "unqualified" is amusing coming from Hart. And the Senate is lower in person to person quality? I doubt this (not that I think it's any higher).
That said, Hart's central premise is correct and frightening, but it's also why nobody should be getting all excited about an Elizabeth Warren candidacy. Without money she isn't going to win - and I hope nobody seriously thinks she's NOT going to take money from the same people she will allegedly go after.
We're in agreement here - it's frightening across the board. Ironically, this whole engine is the unintended consequence of Watergate.
Nearly 2 billion dollars. What a lot of mouths that could feed. Maybe I'm just looking at it the wrong way.
I believe it is also an unintended consequence of an ever-growing Federal Leviathan. When the Federal government can legislate (or better yet regulate) anything, then we have raised the stakes of control of that beast. Spend a few millions (or hundreds of millions), because billions are at stake. If you can get legislation/regulation that favors your company and/or disadvantages your opponents, its a good investment.
If the Federal government had no power to help your company or disadvantage your opponents, why would you spend that much money? Civic mindedness?
Of course not...I'm suggesting wasting 2 billion dollars on a job that pays $200K a year is a little suspect though.
It's just practice for being an effective government official...you know...becoming an expert at wasting other people's money and being paid to do it.
It isn't the candidate's money they are spending. Plus, you can make millions as a former president on the speaking tour. Plus, you will be forever famous if you become president.
Latest threads
-
SEC West Showdown Sends Alabama to Oxford to Meet with Ole Miss- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Davis II Named to Stopper of the Year Midseason Watch List
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Eleven-Run Third Powers Alabama to 14-5 Win over Samford
- Started by Diamond Tide
- Replies: 0
-
Maybe aTm's Pockets Aren't So Bottomless After All -- Layoffs In The Athletic Department
- Started by 4Q Basket Case
- Replies: 6
-
Time to un-vacate 2005-2007 on field victories and un-forfeit the 1993 season?
- Started by CmdrThor
- Replies: 24
-