Printable View
Oh, can someone, hopefully one of you librarian or green types, explain to me why it was the Perot made it to the big debates, got the press and was actually a contender(kinda) while all the other parties still can't do crap. I mean after Perot we have Jesse Ventura then nothing.
I really am not trying to knock on anything or anyone, but want to know why they made it work.
Perot used his own $$. Simple.
Exactly, money talks, regardless if it's your own, or government-granted. How many millions did Perot invest in buying airtime direct from the major TV networks?
You said it yourself Cleetus, "Sorry, run a good campaign and raise the money to get media time the proper way." http://forums.windrivers.com/showthr...light=arrested
Problem is, how is someone who's not already a career politician or multi-millionaire supposed to gain the attention of the whole country? Bright ideas and warm thoughts on how to get the country on-track will not win the campaign alone...
More to the point, Perot used his campaign and personal $$$ to buy network TV airtime when he could tell the american people across the nation why he thought we should do things his way and not the way of the big politicians. He was candid about things that the D&R talk circles around and weas able to say it to 20 million people. He forced their had by shoving their inadequacies in their faces.Quote:
Originally Posted by MobilePCPhysician
So basically what the Libertarians and Greens need are rich eccentrics not afraid to spend their own fortunes...
Wonder which way Bill Gates leans politically?
I'm guessing definitely not a red supporter based on the fact that the red government tried to crush him several years ago.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wayward Clam
So then honestly, if they can't raise the money, why should we think they could govern something as big and complex as the US? Or even a major state?
Just because you can raise money doesn't mean you know how to run a country. I mean,.. look at W for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleetus
But why should I care about someone that can't get people to give in larger numbers to his cause?
If the guy was a business man we would fire him for not making it, why, esp in a capitalist society, should we then turn and try to help the guy that can't make it? Seems like total hypocrasy, esp for the libertarians. Market will right itself? So will politics, if the politician can't gather the support, he doesn't win. You have to have something to sell, and their product doesn't move.
Hate, love or whatever for the man, Bush won, he did a better job pushing his project, his people did a better job pushing a product. The Dem's can't do as well, but still do a better job.
Ok, I am just rambling now :thumbs:
They should make guidelines for a candidate to qualify. I.e.,.. if a candidate doesn't have enough interest gained by such and such date, then they are not qualified to run for the office of presidency. I mean, if you think about it, it's just a waste of peoples time/money for someone to run a full campaign with only a 1% registered voter interest. If they want to speak out and make a difference in terms of where they stand on the issues, then by all means, excersize that right. But to run for president when you KNOW you're going to lose,.. then do the right thing and step down so that those who have a chance to win, can. I mean think about this, Bush only won by like one percent. Imagine how much closer the electorate votes would've been if the several third party nobodies weren't on the map. Plus with the recount situation,.. Kerry would've had a very good chance of winning this thing.
Perot managed to catch the Republicrats with their pants down. He used the force of his personality to persuade the Bush (41) and Clinton campaigns to allow him to participate in the debates because they figured he was a nutcase that would make a complete fool of himself. What they did not count on was the high level of voter frustration with the two-party system.
Perot scared them so badly they made sure no third-party would be allowed to participate in the Presidential debates. Since 1992, the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) rules have been restructured to eliminate every party with less than 15% in the polls:
"The CPD's third criterion requires that the candidate have a level of support of at least 15% (fifteen percent) of the national electorate as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations, using the average of those organizations' most recent publicly reported results at the time of the determination."
http://www.debates.org/pages/candsel2004.html
How soon we forget the posts here that said the red supporters let all out jobs go overseas for tax breaks. He should be loving that because he did not lose any money during any class action suits. He got free advertising and a tax break.Quote:
Originally Posted by WebHead
No, I don't think you're rambling.....too much. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Cleetus
I'm not saying "help the man", but the playing field needs to be levelled somewhat.
If the current two parties were in charge of businesses, do you think the CEO's wouldn't have been fired already? It would make Enron look like peanuts....
Of couse the Libertarian's "product doesn't move"....too many people rely on government for their retirement, or their welfare check, their research grants, and don't want to rock that boat... Too many citizens are afraid to hold responsibility for themselves, and are afraid to push for some accountability within government.
If we become a people who are willing to give up our money and our freedom in exchange for the same old rhetoric and promises, then nothing can save us.
This is probably why he has appeared to be neutral in terms of politics. I don't think he really cares who is in office -- or even about politics in general. He lives in an alternate universe I think.Quote:
Originally Posted by Larommi
Nobody is asking for us to help the third parties, but at least we should let them participate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleetus