<div>Yes, I'm quite excited about how Washington has made them all fight to the bitter end to get on the ballet and nothing says both parties will make it. Quite fun.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>A quick note; I like how you dodged the fact Obama said he would limit his spending (which would have made the first presidential campaign to ever stay within limits, instead we're breaking records of the rich spending their freedom of speech) but he never followed through with that promise. McCain was given no choice but to not sign it because it's a statistical fact that whomever spends the most wins.</div>
<div>I found it interesting that yesterday's cartoon was actually about this: <<a href="http://www.comics.com/comics/grandave/archive/images/grandave2008183421030.gif">http://www.comics.com/comics/grandave/archive/images/grandave2008183421030.gif</a>></div>
<div><<a href="http://www.comics.com/comics/grandave/archive/grandave-20081030.html">http://www.comics.com/comics/grandave/archive/grandave-20081030.html</a>></div>
<div> </div>
<div>Why does the Siarlys Media only have negative things to say about McCain? Why is it Siarlys, who said his goal was to get me to vote Obama, hasn't kept up his end of the bargain and presented pro's and con's for both sides?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>~Lance<br></div>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 9:25 PM, Discussion of the Good, Clean Funnies List <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gcfl-discuss@gcfl.net">gcfl-discuss@gcfl.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">To coin a phrase, how come the Lance Media are always digging up negative<br>things to say about Obama, and hardly ever have anything negative to say<br>
about McCain? There is an obvious media bias here.<br><br>But I'll bite anyway. None of the money Obama is spending is taxpayer<br>dollars, it is all private voluntary donations. So its not "hurting" any<br>
class of people, except those who chose to give it.<br><br>It would be nice to put elections in an iron-clad straight jacket, where<br>each candidate is assigned an equal amount of money, and a specified<br>amount of TV, radio, print media, and internet time/exposure to make<br>
their case, with all other spending by anyone and everyone prohibited by<br>law.<br><br>For example, to be even-handed about it, the Planned Parenthood ad which<br>stops just short of saying that Sarah Palin supports rape, and the<br>
BornAliveTruth.org ad which doesn't even stop short of saying that Obama<br>supports infanticide, would both be banned.<br><br>The near impossibility of banning the "outside commentary" ads, the<br>reflex of any campaign to respond to or drown out such ads, is one reason<br>
we've never accomplished this laudable goal. They always find a way<br>around whatever the latest law is. This year, the money is staying out of<br>the 527 groups who made headlines in 2004, running through 501(c)(4)<br>
organizations which don't have to disclose their donors.<br><br>Also, while McCain is limited in what he can spend, the Republican<br>National Committee, an independent organization not connected to the<br>McCain campaign, is putting tens of millions of additional dollars into<br>
the presidential race. I've gotten two mailings and at least four taped<br>phone calls from them, not counting what they spend on TV ads and get out<br>the vote operations. (No, the Democratic National Committee is not<br>
putting equal money into the presidential race, for the simple reason<br>that Obama is doing so well with fundraising, the Dems can afford to put<br>their money into congressional and senate races. No virtue here, pure<br>
self-interest, but it does make the net balance more complicated.)<br><br>Another problem is that every minor candidate demands equal time. Now<br>with public confidence in both Democrats and Republicans at an all-time<br>
low, it would be unfair and unwise to limit the public money and air time<br>to just these two. But it would be wierd and a real waste to give the<br>same 80 million dollars to every egotist who puts their name on the<br>
ballot.<br><br>So far, we've got what we've got, and if a candidate can tap the support,<br>naturally they are going to make use of it. That doesn't say a darn thing<br>about what kind of policies they will work by if elected.<br>
<br>I would like to see a much shorter election season, leaving less room for<br>all the ads and spending and such. Maybe a nationally coordinated primary<br>season starting no earlier than April 1, ending no later than June 30, a<br>
mandatory two months of media silence over the rest of the summer, and<br>two months for each surviving candidate to make their case in the fall.<br><br>The Supreme Court has found free speech issues in many attempts to<br>
regulate campaigns. Depending on who is writing what law, either the<br>Democratic Party, or the Republican Party, or both, go to court over this<br>stuff. Republicans have historically had the edge on fundraising, and<br>
therefore object to limits on campaign spending. So, Obama turned the<br>tables this year? The Republicans have no moral high ground to object.<br>Sour grapes. Not from you Lance, its your honest opinion, but the<br>Republicans really have no ground to complain.<br>
<br>Washington state has made some interesting efforts to establish primaries<br>which throw all the candidates together onto one ballot, let the<br>candidate list their party affiliation, if any, and let any voter cast<br>
their ballot for any candidate, then put the top two on the general<br>election ballot. I like that. If the top two are both Dems, or both Reps,<br>so be it. If its one or the other, vs. a Green, a Blue, a Purple, and<br>
Independent, or whatever, so be it. Its a good example for the country.<br><br>Siarlys</blockquote></div>