|
| Tuesday, May 17, 2005 |
| This is not how politics should be run |
The NY Daily News reports that Mayor Bloomberg has already spent $10m on his re-election campaign, "including $267 on tropical fish, $210 for Mets tickets and $255 on a nifty clock that counts down to Election Day".
As I said before, I think there's something wrong with a candidate spending so much of his own money to get elected ($73m in 2001, a record outside of Presidential elections). It has the feel of subverting the will of the people for personal gain, believing that you know better than the people. And I think Bloomberg is clearly in that territory (hence I support Gifford Miller for Mayor). |
posted by CB @ 8:37 AM   |
|
| 3 Comments: |
-
Dan,
I realize the connection is not clear. My problem is that a candidate's money is not spent on fostering debate about the issues, but rather painting a one-sided picture that favors that particular candidate. Frankly, I believe that in our current political system, money effectively spent on advertising significantly influences votes, and that any decent person can win a race if they spend enough money. Therefore I believe that the candidate that spends tons of money is not fostering a fair playing field whereby the average voter really has a choice.
Is that any more clear? I fear that it's not.
-
That is a good point. I found another canada mazda site that goes into even more canada mazdadetail.
-
|
| |
| << Home |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Recent Posts |
|
| Archives |
|
| Contact Me |
| Email me |
| Template by |
 |
|
|
Dan,
I realize the connection is not clear. My problem is that a candidate's money is not spent on fostering debate about the issues, but rather painting a one-sided picture that favors that particular candidate. Frankly, I believe that in our current political system, money effectively spent on advertising significantly influences votes, and that any decent person can win a race if they spend enough money. Therefore I believe that the candidate that spends tons of money is not fostering a fair playing field whereby the average voter really has a choice.
Is that any more clear? I fear that it's not.