Lots of Money = Leader ?

I had a hard time choosing a post for this particular assignment due to the fact that the majority of the opinions I have been seeing are about the same exact thing. Who won the second debate? Why I'm supporting Barack Obama instead of Mitt Romney. Why I'm voting for Romney instead of Obama. Honestly, as much as I've read, I probably have heard every single point possible (I'm sure there are more out there, but it's just hard to believe). I was looking for a post that had more originality than the majority of the blogs I was reading and then I came across P. Sainath's article on "Billionaire Candidates: Follow the Money, Find the Leader." Did you know that each candidate and their party may spend up to $1.25 billion by the time the campaign is over? That's $2.5 billion every 4 years just to choose a leader for our country. If I remember correctly, isn't our country trillions of dollars in debt? And yet our "leaders" are choosing to spend $2.5 billion each election? That, in my opinion, is craziness!

It might appear that direct spending in 2012 by both presidential campaigns is less than it was in 2008 — though not by much. 

Sainath, the rural affairs editor of The Hindu, author, and professor at Princeton, writes this article to inform the "average joe" just how much money a candidate accrues and spends during their campaign. I can't even imagine $1 million let alone $2.5 BILLION! They spend this money and then wonder why the US is in such debt and why our economy is down the toilet. Sainath then goes on to state that despite racking up such a heinous bill, when money or even the inequality within the United States regarding money is addressed during their "debate" they avoid any commentary like the plague.This statement by far made me sad and just sickened me to no end,

"Meanwhile, about 25 million people who want full-time jobs can’t find them. The number of those on food stamps is at record levels. And 50 million people suffer food insecurity in a nation where, as economist Paul Buchheit points out: “The 10 richest Americans made enough money last year to feed every hungry person on earth for a year.”

If this is the case, which I have no doubt is probably true, the United States is doing something wrong. It needs to be addressed. However, with the leaders of today... I doubt it ever will be. It's in man's nature to think and act in their own self-interest above all else. However sad it may be, this fact is truly being shown. 

Once again, neither man mentioned the word “inequality” at any point in the debate...the word was as taboo as “corporate crime.”

As you can probably tell, I completely agree with what Sainath points out. Sure, I thought the presidency campaign would cost a lot, but $2.5 billion? That's outrageous. If the "average joe" wanted to run for presidency, it just couldn't be done. He'd be stomped by the money bags trailing men such as Obama and Romney. Does one have to be filthy rich to even consider becoming a leader within our country?

Apparently so.

Being hostage to money power is no myth.

Pretty Words... That's All I Hear!

   

I have read through a large number of commentaries and editorials over the past couple of days and ultimately all I'm seeing in regards to politics is how uneventful the most recent presidential debate was. How the articulate Romney overpowered President Obama, whom only seemed "tired". The opinion article Jeremy D. Mayer writes within The Christian Science Monitor, dated October 4th 2012, has basically hit the spot on the nose in regards to this debate (If you can even call it that!). Mayer is an associate professor at the School of Public Policy at George Mason University who often gives his input in regards to US Politics. He is very knowledgeable when it comes to Presidential Campaigns and is never shy about voicing his strong opinions. 

Obama never tried to go on the attack against Romney

Mayer doesn't exactly join a side in this article but rather critique's both Romney and President Obama in how they handled the debate in general. Neither candidate had a flawless argument. Statements such as "Obama said almost nothing that would appeal to someone who wasn't already with him" and "you point out the numerous contrary positions [Romney's] had in public life, and say that he’s a man who will say anything to win an election. A man without conviction or principle," are threaded throughout the entire article. He criticizes Obama and then turns around to bring down Romney, never to exactly pinpoint a Presidential Candidate that may come ahead. However, there is one statement in particular that may be the most important statement within Mayer's article, "campaign strategy says that the candidate who has a likability advantage is the one who has the better ability to go on the offensive." In this case, Romney comes out ahead. He went to the debate looking as if he "wanted" to be there when President Obama was quiet, reserved, and just looked exhausted. Who wants a tired President who can not attack when it's necessary? 

If Mr. Plouffe told Obama to be quietly dignified and avoid attacking Romney as a flipflopper, he should be fired.

Overall, Mayer points out that this debate did not suggest a clear winner but rather just muddied the waters further for those undecided. Neither candidate made a real impression other than Romney really knowing how to talk pretty and Obama looking tired. This is certainly not what a Presidential Debate, an all important event that should help determine who is fit to run the United States, should entail. The questions were elementary, not even coming close to those controversial topics of the present day, and the answers were unrealistic or too lame to even be considered. Luckily there are two debates left. Romney has the chance to put his foot in his mouth, and Obama has the chance to attack (or vice versa). 

You can’t go before the American people, and give the impression that a debate – one of the core parts of the presidential campaign – is a chore you are above.

In conclusion, I would have to completely agree with Mayer and what is said within this article. HOWEVER it doesn't help whatsoever when it comes to being an undecided individual. The Presidential campaign is at a point in which they are aiming towards those that haven't decided whether to back Romney or President Obama. This article and even the debate that occurred does not help the undecided to sway either way! Romney spits out words that he knows people want to hear, but can those words become a reality or will they simply remain a fantasy? Obama doesn't pinpoint the lies that Romney spiels but rather takes it and goes around the subject in general. Can we not find a candidate that is honestly and whole-heartily working to make United States better? Bah... Probably just my naivete speaking.