I don't give to political parties.

[poltr1]

[Originally written 6/28/12.]

I'm registered as a Democrat. And I'm subscribed to a number of Democratic email lists. And all of them are urging me to chip in at least $3 to help counter the spending the Republicans have done in this past year.

Why do they think that their solution is to get money to power their counter-propaganda machine? Are the American people really that stupid and gullible that they'll fall for the Republican fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) that the GOP propaganda machine has been generating and churning out the past several months? Or are the American people too lazy or busy to make up their own minds? I'd like to think that they aren't.

My answer to the Democrats has been, and continues to be, "no". I'm unemployed again [well, I was at the time I originally wrote this], and I shouldn't be spending my money frivolously. And if I wasn't employed, I still wouldn't give to them. I just don't give to political parties, period. To me, it's a waste of my money.

Comments

[zorya-thinks.livejournal.com]

I don't agree Jim. Case in point, George W Bush's campaign for a second term was successful in part because it was able to mobilize the gullible by playing on their fears of terrorism and teh gay. And they successfully turned Kerry's honorable service in Vietnam into a liability by convincing the gullible that he didn't really earn his medals.

When your opponent is trowing pots of money into negative advertising you have to have the money to counter that narrative. Look at Sherrod Brown's re-election campaign. Josh Mandel shouldn't be close to him in the polls. Sherrod is an experienced legislator with a positive record of working for Ohio in both the House and the Senate. Mandel has very little experience, and has been regularly putting his foot in his mouth up to the knee. Heck, he called Brown unAmerican in a public debate. But he is still eating away Brown's lead.

The reason Mandel's campaign is performing so well is all the outside groups that has been pouring an avalanche of money into negative advertising against Brown. Where is Sen Brown going to get the money to counter this drek unless some of us donate to his campaign? Should he rely on rich donors? Would that leave him beholden to their agendas if he does?

Honestly Jim, your argument sounds a little bit like putting your fingers in your ears and saying "La, la, la I can't hear you." The reality is that lacking real public financing of campaigns we've got to put our money where our vested interest lies.

[poltr1]

I'm quite aware of all the negative ads ("Has Brown worked for you?"), and the organizations behind them -- specifically, Crossroads GPS (Karl Rove) and Americans for Prosperity (the Koch Bros.) Mandel is an ex-Marine, and thus, I expect a higher level of honor and integrity from him. And I'm not seeing it.

But I still assert that throwing more money at the problem is not going to solve the problem. I've already turned off my television, and intend to keep it off until after the election.

One independent FB-friend of mine has been touting Scott Rupert, and independent candidate for Ohio Senator. His website is http://www.scottrupert.com/. As much as I think Sherrod Brown would continue to serve Ohio well for 6 more years -- much better than Mandel -- I don't want to maintain the status quo. Both parties got us into this mess, and I don't see either of them getting us out anytime soon.

To quote Joe, another of my independent FB friends, "If more voters would stop being We the Sheeple, grow a spine, become We the People, and give real thought to and actually pull that third party or independent lever (fill a circle, push a button, etc), we might actually start getting elected officials who do the job instead of concern themselves with how to pad their own wallets."