Iowa: The Meaningless Sideshow Begins - Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone

[Bozita]

Last edited Wed Jan 4, 2012, 01:38 PM - Edit history (1)

Iowa: The Meaningless Sideshow Begins
By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone
03 January 12


-snip-

The Iowa caucus, let's face it, marks the beginning of a long, rigidly-controlled, carefully choreographed process that is really designed to do two things: weed out dangerous minority opinions, and award power to the candidate who least offends the public while he goes about his primary job of energetically representing establishment interests.

If that sounds like a glib take on a free election system that allows the public to choose whichever candidate they like best without any censorship or overt state interference, so be it. But the ugly reality, as Dylan Ratigan continually points out, is that the candidate who raises the most money wins an astonishing 94% of the time in America.

That damning statistic just confirms what everyone who spends any time on the campaign trail knows, which is that the presidential race is not at all about ideas, but entirely about raising money.

The auctioned election process is designed to reduce the field to two candidates who will each receive hundreds of millions of dollars apiece from the same pool of donors. Just take a look at the lists of top donors for Obama and McCain from the last election in 2008.

-snip-

more...
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/iowa-the-meaningless-sideshow-begins-20120103

[Joe Shlabotnik]

1. Once again Taibbi nails it.

The whole article at Rolling Stone is a good sobering read.

[Hawkowl]

2. We live in a Monetacracy

The United Corporations of America!

[Vestigial_Sister]

3. Matt...

don't mince his words. Good Read.

[Overseas]

4. Sad K&R.

[A Simple Game]

5. I'm sure Taibbi is right, but a small part of me

wants to believe that the candidate gets the most money because he/she is the best candidate.

I know, always the dreamer.

[onlyadream]

10. That was the first thing I thought too

But take a look at my username, lol.

[ChadwickHenryWard]

11. The problem is that most people don't ever give money to political candidates.

The vast majority of money comes from people connected with businesses. That is why it is possible for Taibbi to cite numbers in terms of which companies have given the most to which candidates. Though partially based on policies favorable to that business, the donations are mostly aimed at calling in favors later. There is a very substantial connection between campaign spending and votes on election day, and firms that donated to a candidate are much more likely to have that official's ear later on. It is more or less buying an election, and more or less buying influence.

[progressoid]

6. Linky??

[Bozita]

7. ooops, just added it to the OP ... Thank you.

[progressoid]

8. Thanks

I probably could have googled it but I'm on a sick day.

[Uncle Joe]

9. This is how corporate supremacy works, an excellent column by Tabibi.

Thanks for the thread, Bozita.