The New York Times, among many publications, reports the Presidential Election is in sync with how successful Hollywood blockbuster films are calculated. Not facing of course, the astronomical amounts of money raised ticketing Americans demonstrates how little our money is worth. Leaving this political forum bickering over clichés from a lack of imagination that’s paid well enough, if, and, or otherwise, anyway.
The Founding Fathers were among the rebels’ wealthiest and could have bought elections for themselves, but chose a system of one person/one vote rather than how many shares one owns in the marketplace. Left for future generations to endlessly haggle over. The Times said: In the battle for political cash, President Obama is in an unaccustomed place during the final months of the 2012 campaign: he is losing. Mitt Romney and the Republican National Committee easily outraised the formidable Obama money machine for the second month in a row. A nonstop schedule of high-dollar events around the country brought in $106 million during June to Mr. Obama’s $71 million, giving him and his party four times the cash on hand that it had just three months ago. But at least this a way to bounce-pass and re-circulate some money among the public? Supposedly Mr. Obama’s fund-raising deficit in part reflects Wall Street and traditionally right-leaning industries swinging hard back to the Republican Party and Mr. Romney, whose promise to curtail regulation and cut taxes has drawn a lot of five-figure checks. Mr. Romney also had success in June drawing small donors, Obama’s traditional strength. The Times figures this reflects conservative anger over the recent Supreme Court decision upholding the president’s signature health care law. Mr. Romney and the R.N.C. now have about $160 million in cash. Reflecting, as this season’s other aspirants demonstrated, there’s no business like a presidential candidacy.
For instance the career of Mike “The Entertainer” Huckabee. Mr. Romney’s finance chief, Spencer Zwick, said in a statement, “This month’s fund-raising is a statement from voters that they want a change of direction in Washington.” How either political persuasion changes much of anything while propped up by ideas worn to the bone is a debate neither can afford the public facing. So money, in fact, could tend to hide that people are forced to accept there are no actual alternatives. R. Donahue Peebles, a New York businessman who has raised more than $100,000 for Mr. Obama, said, “It’s the perfect storm for Republicans,” as they, “and independents who supported the president financially thought they would see a change in how Washington worked. What they see now, and it’s not necessarily the president’s fault, is a lot of partisanship in Washington and a struggling economy.” Could that be because taxpayer bail out money cannot be re-invested at a level which might weaken the recipients? In New York City you can never hear enough great news about how rising real estate values mean the economy could be resurging. Technically: the abused golden goose that got us in this trouble in 2000? Or while partying like it was 1999?
So Mr. Obama had significantly outspent Mr. Romney’s advertising in swing states, but since Mr. Romney’s campaign has barraged airwaves with anti-Obama advertisements the president’s campaign is forced to spend its own money to match. Where is the book chronicling these trails of cash? You’d think by now with these sums the subject has earned some scrutiny. Where does all the advertising money go? To carpenters who build and rebuild the media titans fantastic homes? Or does a whopping 6% become donated so local charities stay afloat? The grudgingly acceptable socialism celebrities attach themselves to and show the public how much they care for their attention. And why is it never an issue for more than half-a-day how much candidates gave to charities themselves in the previous years? Because the electoral process is a domain of business and to rationalize otherwise is a crock.
The Times goes on pointing out Mr. Obama easily outraised Mr. Romney through much of the last year, as Mr. Romney fought for the Republican nomination while Mr. Obama exploited his incumbency to raise large checks in conjunction with the Democratic National Committee. New nominees typically take in huge influxes of cash as major donors come off the sidelines at the end of a nominating fight, as John Kerry did during the early months of the 2004 general election campaign against George W. Bush. Come November, the final tally between the two candidates could be close to a draw. So once again the final numbers, that we can apparently only calculate closely, will come down to half the country’s choice, whether it’s a majority or not. The Times goes on as if there’s not much difference between an election and sports section, saying, yet money flooding into Mr. Romney’s campaign suggests that even Mr. Obama, the most prodigious fund-raiser to date in political history, can be beaten. Ooo. And Democratic-aligned outside groups, including those investing heavily in races for the House and the Senate, are far behind their Republican counterparts in raising and spending money. What is this really? A game where resentment is fomented both for and against the poor whose climb from poverty has really been stifled by the mastering of inflation by interests able to do so? Republican candidates, party committees and outside groups have spent $269 million on broadcast advertising, according to the Campaign Media Analysis Group, compared with $133 million for Democrats. Totals don’t include tens of millions of dollars Mr. Obama invested early on data mining, technology and campaign infrastructure Mr. Romney is now seeking to match on the fly. On the fly? That’s a catchy phrase the Times used, but for these prices we’re being played for fools that anything could ever be done in that spirit in such a divisive national campaign that ours have become. The Times notes Mr. Obama is being outraised despite a more intense fund-raising schedule than any of his predecessors. He was scheduled for two events on Monday in Washington, bringing the total to 174 fund-raisers since formally beginning his re-election campaign last year, according to CBS News. Beautiful that no one can pinch-hit for the big drawing name who should probably sleep more as our president. Then without using the phrase, sounding desperate, the Times said Mr. Obama sought to rally supporters on Monday with a blunt e-mail from Ann Marie Habershaw, the campaign’s chief operating officer. “We could lose if this continues,” Ms. Habershaw warned. Meaning all is lost without your money whether or not you vote? This what the chauvinistic expression “one man one vote” evolved to mean? Several top Obama donors said privately Mr. Obama’s attacks on Mr. Romney’s private equity career, handling White House relations with business leaders and his criticisms of tax rates for the wealthy made it harder for allies to raise money on Mr. Obama’s behalf in the financial sector and other industries. Good. Because what’s really outrageous is the tax revenue raised is not enough, and it’s not because a lot hasn’t been raised but the issue never faced is the economy is distorted out of proportion. Tell a child gum used to cost a penny and they’d probably look at you as if you were the one from Mars rather than their being the ones born here on this foreign planet of our own making.
One Obama backer, who declined to be identified because of his campaign relationship, said, “He (President Obama) will not have the same level of support from the business community as last time. Either in endorsements, money or support. That’s clear.” And Mr. Peebles, the Obama fund-raiser, echoed objections among some other Democrats with financial industry ties, over unreasonable attacks on the wealthy by the Obama campaign. “I just got back from Rhode Island on my boat,” Mr. Peebles said, referring to criticism of Mr. Romney’s much-photographed vacation boating last week on New Hampshire’s Lake Winnipesaukee. “I can hold 12 people on my boat. I don’t feel that I’m out of touch with Americans or that I am a bad person. I find it offensive, and I’m a supporter.” Really? The millionaire President Barack Obama personally complained about the wealthy? Doubtful as this president is documented compromising with that reality as it is true, the more who are rich the merrier.
The Founding Fathers were among the rebels’ wealthiest and could have bought elections for themselves, but chose a system of one person/one vote rather than how many shares one owns in the marketplace. Left for future generations to endlessly haggle over. The Times said: In the battle for political cash, President Obama is in an unaccustomed place during the final months of the 2012 campaign: he is losing. Mitt Romney and the Republican National Committee easily outraised the formidable Obama money machine for the second month in a row. A nonstop schedule of high-dollar events around the country brought in $106 million during June to Mr. Obama’s $71 million, giving him and his party four times the cash on hand that it had just three months ago. But at least this a way to bounce-pass and re-circulate some money among the public? Supposedly Mr. Obama’s fund-raising deficit in part reflects Wall Street and traditionally right-leaning industries swinging hard back to the Republican Party and Mr. Romney, whose promise to curtail regulation and cut taxes has drawn a lot of five-figure checks. Mr. Romney also had success in June drawing small donors, Obama’s traditional strength. The Times figures this reflects conservative anger over the recent Supreme Court decision upholding the president’s signature health care law. Mr. Romney and the R.N.C. now have about $160 million in cash. Reflecting, as this season’s other aspirants demonstrated, there’s no business like a presidential candidacy.
For instance the career of Mike “The Entertainer” Huckabee. Mr. Romney’s finance chief, Spencer Zwick, said in a statement, “This month’s fund-raising is a statement from voters that they want a change of direction in Washington.” How either political persuasion changes much of anything while propped up by ideas worn to the bone is a debate neither can afford the public facing. So money, in fact, could tend to hide that people are forced to accept there are no actual alternatives. R. Donahue Peebles, a New York businessman who has raised more than $100,000 for Mr. Obama, said, “It’s the perfect storm for Republicans,” as they, “and independents who supported the president financially thought they would see a change in how Washington worked. What they see now, and it’s not necessarily the president’s fault, is a lot of partisanship in Washington and a struggling economy.” Could that be because taxpayer bail out money cannot be re-invested at a level which might weaken the recipients? In New York City you can never hear enough great news about how rising real estate values mean the economy could be resurging. Technically: the abused golden goose that got us in this trouble in 2000? Or while partying like it was 1999?
So Mr. Obama had significantly outspent Mr. Romney’s advertising in swing states, but since Mr. Romney’s campaign has barraged airwaves with anti-Obama advertisements the president’s campaign is forced to spend its own money to match. Where is the book chronicling these trails of cash? You’d think by now with these sums the subject has earned some scrutiny. Where does all the advertising money go? To carpenters who build and rebuild the media titans fantastic homes? Or does a whopping 6% become donated so local charities stay afloat? The grudgingly acceptable socialism celebrities attach themselves to and show the public how much they care for their attention. And why is it never an issue for more than half-a-day how much candidates gave to charities themselves in the previous years? Because the electoral process is a domain of business and to rationalize otherwise is a crock.
The Times goes on pointing out Mr. Obama easily outraised Mr. Romney through much of the last year, as Mr. Romney fought for the Republican nomination while Mr. Obama exploited his incumbency to raise large checks in conjunction with the Democratic National Committee. New nominees typically take in huge influxes of cash as major donors come off the sidelines at the end of a nominating fight, as John Kerry did during the early months of the 2004 general election campaign against George W. Bush. Come November, the final tally between the two candidates could be close to a draw. So once again the final numbers, that we can apparently only calculate closely, will come down to half the country’s choice, whether it’s a majority or not. The Times goes on as if there’s not much difference between an election and sports section, saying, yet money flooding into Mr. Romney’s campaign suggests that even Mr. Obama, the most prodigious fund-raiser to date in political history, can be beaten. Ooo. And Democratic-aligned outside groups, including those investing heavily in races for the House and the Senate, are far behind their Republican counterparts in raising and spending money. What is this really? A game where resentment is fomented both for and against the poor whose climb from poverty has really been stifled by the mastering of inflation by interests able to do so? Republican candidates, party committees and outside groups have spent $269 million on broadcast advertising, according to the Campaign Media Analysis Group, compared with $133 million for Democrats. Totals don’t include tens of millions of dollars Mr. Obama invested early on data mining, technology and campaign infrastructure Mr. Romney is now seeking to match on the fly. On the fly? That’s a catchy phrase the Times used, but for these prices we’re being played for fools that anything could ever be done in that spirit in such a divisive national campaign that ours have become. The Times notes Mr. Obama is being outraised despite a more intense fund-raising schedule than any of his predecessors. He was scheduled for two events on Monday in Washington, bringing the total to 174 fund-raisers since formally beginning his re-election campaign last year, according to CBS News. Beautiful that no one can pinch-hit for the big drawing name who should probably sleep more as our president. Then without using the phrase, sounding desperate, the Times said Mr. Obama sought to rally supporters on Monday with a blunt e-mail from Ann Marie Habershaw, the campaign’s chief operating officer. “We could lose if this continues,” Ms. Habershaw warned. Meaning all is lost without your money whether or not you vote? This what the chauvinistic expression “one man one vote” evolved to mean? Several top Obama donors said privately Mr. Obama’s attacks on Mr. Romney’s private equity career, handling White House relations with business leaders and his criticisms of tax rates for the wealthy made it harder for allies to raise money on Mr. Obama’s behalf in the financial sector and other industries. Good. Because what’s really outrageous is the tax revenue raised is not enough, and it’s not because a lot hasn’t been raised but the issue never faced is the economy is distorted out of proportion. Tell a child gum used to cost a penny and they’d probably look at you as if you were the one from Mars rather than their being the ones born here on this foreign planet of our own making.
One Obama backer, who declined to be identified because of his campaign relationship, said, “He (President Obama) will not have the same level of support from the business community as last time. Either in endorsements, money or support. That’s clear.” And Mr. Peebles, the Obama fund-raiser, echoed objections among some other Democrats with financial industry ties, over unreasonable attacks on the wealthy by the Obama campaign. “I just got back from Rhode Island on my boat,” Mr. Peebles said, referring to criticism of Mr. Romney’s much-photographed vacation boating last week on New Hampshire’s Lake Winnipesaukee. “I can hold 12 people on my boat. I don’t feel that I’m out of touch with Americans or that I am a bad person. I find it offensive, and I’m a supporter.” Really? The millionaire President Barack Obama personally complained about the wealthy? Doubtful as this president is documented compromising with that reality as it is true, the more who are rich the merrier.
7/10/2012
---------------------------------------------------------------
Can Electoral Outrageousness Be Blamed On The Constitution Too?
7/10/2012 concluded: “I can hold 12 people on my boat. I don’t feel that I’m out of touch with Americans or that I am a bad person. I find it offensive, and I’m a supporter.” Really? The millionaire President Barack Obama personally complained about the wealthy? Doubtful as this president is documented compromising with that reality as it is true, the more who are rich the merrier.
June 13 - July 7, 2017
FLASH
attention's manipulated
"... the more who are rich the merrier."
Political watchers salivated over the State of New Jersey's soap opera over what political weight thrown around means when the governor sat for a time on the beach that the rest of the citizens were precluded from occupying. Buck stopped where?
Another petulant era's aura dominates the political arena of tier upon political tier of power presuming Stalin's preferences. Not Law and Order Lite but leverage by all means the most important thing of all. Reality. No doubt. But ethics seems the level, where lines have to be drawn beneath to acknowledge humanity's forgiven frailties: purchasable for a mere - ... yada yada yada ...
Oops. Again reduced to adding a perspective punchline from an op-ed in The New York Times. By Stephen Fry
Oops. Again reduced to adding a perspective punchline from an op-ed in The New York Times. By Stephen Fry
Happy Birthday, America. One Small Suggestion
"Let's all go to Jersey." Phil Logos of FLEET
in documentary 5th, Park and Madison
This is where I'd like to take the hammer and cycle
Bike Shop Book Tour
Bike Shop Book Tour
The Political Tapestry's A Mirage
Politics, like life, probably isn't fair. Why there are rules. ...
The Senate Commercially Live Redux
United States Attorney General Jeff Sessions' 6/15/2017, 2:30 PM, testimony before the US Senate Committee on Intelligence.
See Soapbox View,
The Senate Commercially Broadcast Live
for comments about preceding, related, testimony from former FBI Director James Comey, pictured here with General Sessions.
What Politics shakes loose from all this, won't be much other than the business of spectacle holding sway. A brazenness on steroids a professional comic should hopefully always be able to say.
Television Network attendance may have been across the board for Comey, but not Fox for Sessions. Somehow don't specifically remember during Comey and would be surprised if I hadn't looked.
The New York Times feed reduced to a 3 minute 40 second highlight reel. Vox.com left nothing on YouTube from their feed.
Mr. Attorney General. Cue me, please?
Senator Burr: Begins by commending the Secretary for his service ... and pontificates, then lists and hopes and pledges this whole affair will uphold the values of truth and self-honor.
Vice-Chairman Warner: Commitment to cooperate. Your role in campaign was as strategic insider, Senator Warner cites. In the Senate, when the stage is yours, ya better take it. But the fact that they, each Senator, have to retain the stage while they have it, precludes directly answering points as cited. Hence - exacerbation. Think maybe that contributes to the curly-cue delivery from so many people of such national importance?
I love the oath. Jury Service is the 2nd best instance I've ever taken one.
... ta da -
US Attorney General Jeff Sessions: ... I appreciate the opportunity to respond ...
Soapbox View: He was not personally involved in a spurious conspiracy with Russian commercial interests.
US AG Jeff Sessions: "have never colluded ... and served this country with honor for 35 years."
Soapbox View: In the world of going before the public? This is a free throw.
US AG Jeff Sessions: "earned a reputation"
Soapbox View: Fine.
Wonder what's planned for ACT III? Get out your lollipops. The Fireside Chat's tweeting controversy. No? At least not not, I guess.
One thing about the art of Public Relations is just about anything, properly described, can be made palpable.
Senator Burr: "I recognize myself for ten minutes."
Vice-Chairman Warner: "provide documentation"
What a life.
Still listening. Ooh, just questioned Comey's competency.
Destined for Broadway.
Something To Say?
Something To Say?
Apologies to those offended by my citing something from a so-called "liberal newspaper." Though on WBAI, one June morning, a guest, noting their, and the station's own, traditional radical position, said the newspaper hardly leans left. A morass results from a jargon fueled arena.
Anyway, in The New York Times, in Philip Galanes' TABLE FOR THREE column, in conversation, Mr. Galanes voiced an especially impressive, concise, accurate, appraisal of George Orwell's 1984. PG: "Isn't that what "1984" explores, the chaos and fatigue of nonstop propaganda?"
Anyway, in The New York Times, in Philip Galanes' TABLE FOR THREE column, in conversation, Mr. Galanes voiced an especially impressive, concise, accurate, appraisal of George Orwell's 1984. PG: "Isn't that what "1984" explores, the chaos and fatigue of nonstop propaganda?"
To indulge, or not's a question?
Arrogance delivers such pain.
Real Estate's more precious than land, water and clean air. As approximately 38% of America agrees. How the conspiracy pays off is in satisfaction.
So. I do make an effort not to be impressed. But another essay - Black Deaths, American Lies, and digitally titled longer as Sacrificing Black Lives for the American Lives, is a topic looming over all our lives in variously, interpreted, ways that appeared in The New York Times, Sunday, June 25, 2017. Disagree as the mantra's been these many years. But there's not a base the author, Ibram X. Kendi didn't touch. If only applause for him were for all of us.
...
Specifically why, how, or whatever, hardly matters. But tellingly, on a Sunday Morning, June 25, 2017, News Interview Show, Kellyanne Conway said, "gazillions of dollars."
A presidency brought to the heights of self-parody? Hardly the issue either when the irony's the belief in being above all that. How dare anyone regard themselves above the human condition!
An economy priced for only the relatively rich to afford, is doomed to failure while wreaking havoc getting there. There's not really any such thing as profit margin, when gouging the customer you have is the business model. Amen.
The Hour Hammer and Cycle Messenger Service coming soon to - http://8balltv.club
