LATEST LETTERS

Focus on issues, not fundraising

Monday, April 30 at 12:01 AM

Marti Reed of Arvada writes:
The current method of election - usually determined by who spends the most - has resulted in too many good candidates losing, not on the issues, but on an inability to compete in fundraising.
We should be voting on the issues, not the number of campaign ads, the "polish" of those ads or the party to which the candidates belong. It should not matter what party the candidate belongs to, or what sex or race the candidate is. The important thing is the issues. And the issues continue to get lost in the rush to collect campaign funds, and spend said funds on the best media "spots," and the best advertising agencies.
I am tired of candidates spending more time trying to raise campaign funds than in telling the voters what they believe, what they will do and what changes they would like to make. If campaign funding were equal, maybe the focus could go back to where it belongs - the issues.

READER COMMENTS

now what kind of non sense is this? Do you really think any of them will tell you what they believe in and mean it? They are all going to say what ever it takes to get elected and the story will change on where they are. Some do tell the same story everytime but not many. look at the top 8 and they have to make sure the questions asked at their debate is gentle enough to make them look good and not have any tough questions from someone who might not agree with them. Care to quess who refused to go on Fox news debate? CNN was much nicer to them and ask really feel good questions
these days you have to look through the bs

Posted by on April 30, 2007 06:22 AM

The best thing the Democrats have done this year is to refuse to debate on Faux.

Faux is a tool for the Republican Party and the illusion that they are an objective news organization needs to be dispelled.

Posted by Charles B on April 30, 2007 07:23 AM

06:22, I have done the same thing you did, that is, fail to understand the point a post is making before replying to it. The point being made is that poorly funded candidates have little opportunity to get their message out, yet they might well be the most qualified candidates.

The answer, of course, is for the federal government to provide equal funding to candidates. What a dramatic and welcome change that would bring to the election process! Sure, it would not be easy because there would be infinite attempts wo get around such a law. But there are such attempts to get around a lot of laws; that most often means the laws are good.

Posted by Truth on April 30, 2007 07:30 AM

"Faux is a tool for the Republican Party and the illusion that they are an objective news organization needs to be dispelled." - Charles B

How about looking at this in another light?

ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, MSNBC, PBS, NYTimes, LATimes, WashPost are all tools for the Democratic Party, Geo Soros, and the far left and the illusion that any of them are objective news organization(s) needs to be dispelled.

Welcome to my world Charles B.

Posted by Michael on April 30, 2007 08:39 AM

Michael

"ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC, MSNBC, PBS, NYTimes, LATimes, WashPost are all tools for the Democratic Party, Geo Soros, and the far left and the illusion that any of them are objective news organization(s) needs to be dispelled."

Man do you have that backwards. They are all conservatively slanted. Only thing omitted was Rupert Murdoch who replaces George Soros.

Posted by on April 30, 2007 09:54 AM

9:54 - You obviously don't own a TV or read the papers.

Posted by KW on April 30, 2007 11:20 AM

Someone implying that the New York Times in conservative? That's gotta take the delusion of the day award.

Posted by on April 30, 2007 11:52 AM

Michael,

Just saying it doesn't make it true. Perhaps you should go back to read and watch what these organizations had to say leading up to the Iraq War for instance.

Far left? Hardly. "Far Left" is a little talking point you gleened from Billy O'Reilly. What you consider "far left" is a majority of Americans.

78% of Faux News watchers voted for George Bush in 2004. This was a higher percentage than any other group including Evangelical Christians and Republicans.

The news outlets you mentioned don't have anywhere near that kind of correlation to voting for John Kerry.

But go ahead and say it if you want, it might help with your persecution complex which, by the way, correlates directly with your likelyhood of being an Authoritarian Bush Cultist.

Posted by Charles B on April 30, 2007 12:05 PM

Saying that ANY news agency is the ONE to watch or NOT watch is absurd. Most are inaccurate at best and completely subjective at worst. Only by weeding through multiple agencies to find some majority of accuracy can be achieved.
At least Truth put forward an idea. (Not in full support, but he did put forth an idea) What idea have you put forth besides slamming the other side? Is there no discussion but rather calling posters and news agencies names?

Posted by bwr on April 30, 2007 02:12 PM

Chales B - you really need to read more. It is well known that Soros is a committed Socialist who has funded a huge web of organizations dedicated to control of the Democratic party and its' direction. His billions poured into these organizations have made it clear that any Democratic candidate that does not toe the line will have no chance. If you doubt this, research it. Then, you can pooh - pooh the results of that research as the fruits of right wingers, despite the evidence.

What amazes me is how the talking points from some of these organizations magically appear, as if on cue, simultaneously on ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN. Wonder how that could happen?

The GOP doesn't play the obvious game of having their candidates boycott debates on networks hostile to them that are likely to pose tough questions. The Democrats can't and won't face anything except softballs, hence the decisions by their candidates to diss the Congressional Black Caucus (which was sponsoring the debates) and avoid Fox News. This from the party that says it represents the concerns of black Americans. Go figure. I don't recall much reporting on any outrage in the MSM, do you?

There is some merit to the idea put forward by Truth (never thought I'd say THAT!) However, figuring out a way to take the big money out of political campaigns and lessen the inequity will not be easy. It used to be the GOP that benefitted by big money. Now it is the other way around. But in either case, there are entrenched interests that won't let it happen or find creative ways to get around it.

You're free to believe what your eyes see in shades of gray. It' pretty black and white in my world.

Posted by on April 30, 2007 03:36 PM

truth I would hope you would give several million a year to the government to pay for all the things you want it to pay for. In fact give my share also cause I hate paying taxes so some fool can give them away to freeloaders

Posted by on April 30, 2007 03:51 PM

Thanks for the suggestion. Consider it done.

Posted by Truth on April 30, 2007 04:44 PM

I watch Telemundo.

Posted by Sharon B. on April 30, 2007 04:59 PM