Yesterday Katherine Harris announced that she was going to continue to run for the senate seat.
For those of you who are unfamiliar with Katherine, here's a brief summary: Katherine is the former Secretary of State who was in charge of elections in Florida during the close Bush/Gore race, and oversaw the counting of the ballots which led to Bush's win. She is viewed with suspicion by many.
I'm not here to weigh on in whether or not she was unethical during the election. What concerns me is this recent announcement, because she has decided to spend about $10 million (out of her own pocket) to win this.
$10 million???
The "good" news (the paper reports) is that her opponent may be qualified for a special waiver that will allow him the chance to collect more monies to fight her. Now let's see if he's able to do it.
It sickens me that if you're rich, you stand a significantly better chance of getting your message out to the public in such an appealing way that you will probably win, no matter what your credentials are. Because the American public is malleable.
The majority of Americans only have a 7th to 8th grade reading level. America is borderline illiterate. Is it any wonder that our citizens can be easily influenced?
America used to be a democracy, but when a candidate is allowed to spend their own money, the system is twisted into something else: an oligarchy.
Oh America. How much we miss you.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
27 comments:
My hatred for her aside, I think it is good that she is running. That will help settle the matter. She is really exposed, however, because of her close ties to bush. He is just a black hole right now.
I am just sad that america is this way. I see two americas, and I fear that I am in the minority.
Bono is Brian Peppers!
Alex, apparently any thinking, educated American is in the minority. :P
I've always thought that the election process should be entirely funded by our tax dollars. You get a set amount and you can spent only that. No spending from privately raised political "war chests" allowed. That way you eliminate only the rich getting elected. Otherwise, at least put a cap on the amount of money that can be spent during an election.
I heard this on the radio this morning. I was hoping you made it your topic of the day. Thanks!
i agree with ed. The candidates should all get the same exact amount of money and they can do with it what they want, but that way the rich wouldnt be so able to take over our country like they have been.
$10 million? Are you serious? Any person in their right mind that spends $10 million to try and get elected either has way too much money to spend or -- from what you said --isn't qualified enough to win. Why would someone need to spend THAT much??? That concerns me. Just knowing that would possibly determine my decision.
How the hell did an elections goon get 10 million dollars? That is A LOT of scratch for a public employee to be sitting on top of. And then she plans to spend it running for a job that pays $150,000 a year? And she might spend tha $10 million and loose?
This is all insane.
But, the ignorant masses may end up electing her anyway. Her qualification? Fixing elections to see that the brother of her boss wins. She could not wait to certify the vote, regardless if there were valid reasons to question the result. When less than 1% of the vote seperates two people, there WILL be questions - and there should be. In a local or state election there would probably be a run-off election with that kind of margin.
I will vote for whoever the other person is. And I do mean whoever. Once again my vote will go not to who I think is the best choice among two or more QUALIFIED people, but to who I think is less evil and bitchy. And that person is NOT going to be the puke inducing Kathrine Harris.
Money plays too big a roll in elections.
Mike, yes it does!
Lazy Iguana, that's what I asked, at first. Then I found out that it's inherited wealth and she "only" started out with $7 million until wealthy relative(s) kicked the bucket. Which leads us to the next question: did she get her first appointment because of campaign contributions? Obviously she's running for power or status or both. How can you otherwise recoup that money, or consider it a worthwhile expenditure???
Deb, exactly! If it were ME, I'd take that $10 mil and tour the world or something. Not waste it on Excedrin moments.
KristieD and Ed, 'zactly!
Michelle, it was on the radio? Which show, MJ?
Did they have the same take on it that I did?
NO SHIT!!!!
sheep baby sheep. so much easier to control people when they are dense. do you really think they want to improve our educational system?
As soon as somebody gets into Congress they no longer want publicly funded elections because that puts them "equal" with everybody else. Equal is no fun, to them.
I live on the other side of the country and it still just makes me sick.
They toss around "campaign finance reform" as a way to placate those of us who are sick of crap like this but it will never happen - too many special interests groups with too much money, on both sides.
Heather, you're right! They'll always build in loopholes so that they can stay in power.
Old Hoss, very true.
Rev, exactly right. That's why education is so terrible.
Random Girl, ;o)
I actually like her from interviews I've seen, but I do not know Florida politics very well, so I can't say if she's a good candidate or not.
The money thing bothers me too.
The ones with the money are the ones who get noticed. It's money that gives them the edge to win whether they are the best candidates or not.
Remember when Ross Perot threw his hat into the presidential ring and spent tons putting himself out there on the nationa stage? Money = power.
For the Dems and Repubs, the presidential candidates will be the ones who raise the most bucks.
Sad, but true.
JD, I have a feeling she's crooked, but of course I can't swear to it. And even if I thought she was God's Gift, I still would object to an individual being able to spend that kind of money to get themselves elected (as you agree)
As long as money = "free" speech, the rich will continue to walk over the rest of us.
The Nancy Alexander and Mike Reeves show. It was just a news clip, no real discussion.
Saur, I think its wrong to always suspect motives in politics. I believe Harris means well for the country. I don't think she's crooked, simply because she has too much money to be tempted. She may have religiously inspired antinomian urges, but so do many people.
I think you are exactly right about the money problem though, and I do believe that we are moving towards oligarchy as well. We started that way of course, but this country has experienced a continuous revolution in citizen participation since the beginning. The mind-boggling increases in productivity have kept giving the poor people opportunities to move up. That is not the natural state of affairs, though. It takes money to make money. Katherine Harris doesn't have to be very bright or talented to increase her fortune. She has enough money to buy good advice if she's humble enough to accept it, and she has enough capital to get a good return in most markets. She has an extremely good education, like most of the children of the rich, and she has extremely good contacts for the same reason.
In order to prevent the natural trend toward oligarchy, society has to find redistributive mechanisms. At one time we had a tax system that was very friendly to the middle class and challenging for the rich. It was very easy for the children of the rich to blow their fortunes. I think it's just the opposite today. The current upper class campaign against progressive taxation, such as the so-called "death tax", makes it harder to institute programs that benefit the bulk of America.
Not to mention the inordinate number of local/state elected officials who win because they appear at the top of the ballot.
Saur,
It’s a little weird how we almost always agree. It this day and age it’s almost impossible to find a hot, wealthy, experienced woman. Just seeing her on that horse prompted me to lay off the Cheetos tonight.
Yes, I agree.
It just becomes more apparent that money makes the world go 'round.
Good post, saur.
Yes, a society that is largely illiterate is much easier to control. And as you've probably guessed I would say, I believe that was planned.
I also agree with that part of the definition of oligarchy which talks about the "power behind the throne". No surprise I would find that interesting either, eh? :D
Have you ever seen the copy of the 1895 eighth grade test? If my blog was working correctly tonight I'd post a copy to illustrate your point about modern literacy levels compared to the literacy level back then. Astounding!
The system is corrupt, Harris is corrupt, money buys power and the sepration between the haves and havenots grows bigger.
People, consumed by the need to get on with their lives and earn a crust and have some fun, keep their heads down, drop out of the political process until one day, it'll be dominated by power hungry millionaires with no cares apart from personal agendas and fiscal gain.
Did you see the Daily Show last night? (comedy central) They "covered" this story and it was wicked funny! That woman scares me!
the good news is that Al Checchi threw 30 million at the California race and got zippo for it.....the bad news? it was money he cleaned out of the North West Airlines deal.....
Susie: are you being ironic regarding immigrants or xenophobic?
Post a Comment