Letters to the Editor
-
Freedom isn't free
The decision that Money = Free Speech was, I think, one of the most damaging ones to our recent democracy. It reduces our representation from 1 person/1 vote to $1/1 vote, and we end up with headlines like this post.
Freedom isn't free, the right likes to say. But dead soldiers in Iraq are not buying our freedom any more than the ridiculous money in this campaign does. This is not a dis to those dead soldiers and their families, but we have to get out of this mentality that just because soldiers die, they must have died for some greater good, instead of a bunch of f'king lies (So, I digress)
Only sound policy based on our own sound values, as the constitution outlines, can do that.
And so, in the end, we get the best representation that money can buy. Turns out, the best is not good enough
-
They can buy my vote
for five cents if they had any ideas other than the ones they're spending the other $199.95 on.
-
As if a few thousand corn farmers were worth it.
They're not.
-
Oscar Wilde was right
This $200 per vote estimate is illustrative of:
"The cynic knows the price of everything and the value of nothing."
-
corn farmers are less equal?
what a shitty thing to say anonymous coward. who the hell are you?
-
Iowa-wa-wa-waaa
The thing about Iowa and New Hampshire (NH) that I find interesting is how the media will surely spin it, depending on who wins -- e.g., whether or not it's a Clinton win.
If Clinton wins Iowa and/or NH, then the standard "inevitable frontrunner" narrative will be dusted off and used, the way it has been used for decades with big-name candidates, where whoever wins those two clinches the nomination early, and the rest are expected to drop out. The old "Iowa and NH matter" line.
But if/when Clinton doesn't win Iowa and/or NH, then the counternarrative will be used, where "it's too early to tell." This is the new "Iowa and NH don't matter if Clinton doesn't win them" line. And if she keeps losing, that counternarrative will continue to be in effect, until she wins one, which'll then be painted as a major rout, a nod to her inevitable nomination.
I wonder how many primaries and caucuses Clinton will be permitted to lose? Certainly she's going to be permitted a wider number of races to lose than Obama or Edwards, who will surely be media-tarred as washed up if they lose even one primary or caucus early in the game.
-
Slackie, as usual...
nails it. If you're looking for an insightful post with wit and style, look for the signature of Slackie Onassis.
@dan of steele:
Granted anonymous was being snarky, but right now the 'corn farmers' are way more equal thanks to early primaries and the Electoral College. It'd be nice if we urbanites occasionally got a say in electing our representatives, don'cha think?
-
somebody has to be first
It'd be nice if we urbanites occasionally got a say in electing our representatives, don'cha think?
you are of course assuming that the people of Iowa have a say in electing our representatives, right?
I don't really think so, the powers that be are simply sounding out the candidates who have been chosen by the party leadership. all candidates have been carefully vetted by interest groups and then the final tweaks are done before beta testing is started.....that is Iowa. New Hampshire is another quaint exercise where everyone can believe democracy actually works but really means next to nothing. Super Tuesday is where it is all decided....and there are plenty of states with significant urban populations.
no one really gets to choose anything, the choices have already been made and you only get to pick the one on the left or the one on the right.
anyway, did not mean to ramble. it just burns my ass to hear some smartass degrade a group of people who have done nothing at all other than produce food for his big mouth.
-
$200 vs. ?
If a vote costs $200 in Iowa and New Hampshire, can you imagine what it would cost in Ohio or New Jersey?
As a resident of this corn state and an active participant in the political process I can pretty much guarantee that there's going to be no less GOTV effort in any other state that is first, the difference is that you can actually do it quite a bit cheaper out here. The fact is that one or two states have to be first.
And in defense of Iowa, we expend a lot of effort to become informed about the candidates, take the time to go caucus, etc. I'm getting pretty sick of everyone belly-aching about Iowa making the decision for the rest of you--in the past week I have been to 3 hour+ political rallies, I've gotten 100 pieces of mail, had my door knocked more than five times, received 10 robo calls, 5 polls and taken the past five days off work to volunteer on a campaign.
Do you seriously still want to be first?