By John Ballard
The outcome of yesterday's Wisconsin election illustrates how public opinion can be shaped by money. The governor kept his job in no small part thanks to outspending his challenger. Bear in mind that out of the two, he's the one with fiscal conservatism at the core of his argument. Hehe. This is why we don't say "poor and powerful." The phrase we always use is "rich and powerful."
To use a medical comparison, overeating and obesity doesn't mean everybody will get sick or die young, and drinking alcohol to excess doesn't always result in a substance abuse problem -- there are fat old people still in good health, and others who can drink themselves into oblivion at night and function quite well the next day. So yes, having access to money goes along with being powerful.
And they left no stone unturned -- or thrown. Just to put ice cream on the cake, Twitchy (Michelle Malkin Owner, Founder and CEO) still has enough resources (and grinding, bullying chutzpah) to sponsor and promote an in-your-face Twitter message this morning...
KILL SCOTT WALKER KILL SCOTT WALKER KILL SCOTT WALKER KILL SCOTT WALKER KILL SCOTT WALKER KILL SCOTT WALKER! Ole Bitch Ass Pig Ass Nigga!!!!
� `Marques.Scoot. (@__SupaMcNASTY__) June 6, 2012
I, for one, am really getting tired of having words put into my mouth that are not mine.
That seems to be a chosen tactic in the extremist arsenal. (And speaking of arsenals, notice the cross-hairs in the Twitchy link and try to remember which side of this contest would be most likely allied with guns. Just saying.)
Yes, I know both sides use the same rhetorical weapons.
But there is a difference -- both sides don't have the same amount of money.
I continue to be amazed at the excuses made by the losing side. If the margin had been a point ot two, maybe, but the margin was almost precisely the same as the original election.
ReplyDeleteDemocracy is not failing just because your side did not win. I have had my preferred candidate lose more than once in fifty years of participation in democracy, and I have never felt the need to "prove the rest of the nation wrong and myself right" by establishing reasons why my guy was cheated out of the win that he should have had.
If you don't like the outcome, I will cheer as you say that you don't like the outcome, but all of this endless stuff that Liberals, or progressives, or whatever we are these days, do about how unfair everything is because the "other side doesn't play fair" and how we keep "getting cheated out of what is rightfully ours" by the other side is just getting monotonous. We lost. One side had to lose, and this time it was us. Move on to the next battle like grownups.
Whatever.
ReplyDeletePlatforms and ideas are important, but I believe public opinion and voting behavior can also be influenced in a serious way with money.
I'll be watching the race for Gabby Gifford's seat. Her former chief-of-staff is running to fill the balance of her term and his opponent, unable to raise enough locally for strong opposition, is being bailed out by lots of outside money. Journalists may now be using the designation "Tea Party candidate" due to ideology, but I am firmly convinced it is due more to money than principles.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77081.html
"Money doesn't talk, it swears." -- Bob Dylan
ReplyDelete