Do we disallow talented candidates who have money?

[MaryBear]

That is kinda like not dating a really nice guy just because he is rich.

We are in danger of discriminating against those that have.

[MADem]

1. What, make a law against it? I think not. NT

[MaryBear]

2. Of course not! But we seem to be

having a tizzy fit about it here at DU of late.

[Harper_is_Bush]

3. If you're talking about Edwards, then your topic is dishonest...

..nobody has critisized him for having money.

Does having money require a person to build a 30,000 sq ft. house at a time that concern about global warming is at it's height?

[MADem]

4. OK, what am I missing???

Who built a house?

[MaryBear]

6. I beg your pardon?

I was gonna clarify but your subject line bothers me enough that I think I will do better not responding further.

[Harper_is_Bush]

11. That's fine. But, I've re-read yours and my post and think both of us were quite clear.

You are, of course, talking about Edwards.

And in that context my response was also clear, leaving no need for either of us to clarify.

[MaryBear]

14. Actually, no.

Assumptions are being made about what I intetnded. And accusations written. Not OK.

[Jim Sagle]

5. Only if they're Democrats.

[MaryBear]

7. Are you serious?

?

[Jim Sagle]

9. I'm making a serious point about the hypocrisy.

The media don't slam Republcians on strictly personal matters - they only slam Demcorats.

The Republcians don't slam Republcians on strictly personal matters - they only slam Demcorats.

"Demcoratic" purity trolls don't slam Republcians on strictly personal matters - they only slam Demcorats.

[MaryBear]

15. Thanks. I get it now and I agree.

IMNHO, we need a good candidate who speaks to and will move on our issues. Money may or may not be a benefit. It certainly does not necessarily in and of itself indicate a candidate who is out of touch with what I want.

[LittleClarkie]

8. Yip

You must not have enough money to mount an actual campaign. Then we love you

[MaryBear]

16. lol

:rofl:

[Zorra]

10. No, we disallow candidates that don't have money.

Think about it.

[Igel]

12. People are using words in funny ways.

Do we "disallow" a person from running when we don't vote for him (or her)? Do we "permit" somebody to be president or senator when we elect them, or do we choose him (or her)? If we don't like somebody's religion or what the tenets of that religion might lead him (or her) to do, and we don't vote for the person, are we imposing an unconstitutional religious test? Do we improperly discriminate against candidates when we don't vote for them?

Answers: No. The correct choice is "choose". No. And, no.

The way you frame it, every election has to be a thoroughly improper massive discrimination binge in which we simply fail to permit candidates to occupy an office. Now, while I won't disagree with you about the discrimination (after all, it's essentially a constraint-based elimination process summed over the set of actual voters), I don't think it's an improper discrimination; and the set of constraints any given voter has is entirely protected by his (or her) Constitutional rights. If I don't like conspicuous consumption, and Edwards engages in it, it's my right to decide that's sufficient to deny him my vote--every bit as much as if I decide that what he says is more important than the house he lives in.

Free country and all that.

[MaryBear]

18. A cultural philosophy seems to be shaping up

among some posters here on DU that says forget about considering someone if s/he has a 3000000 square foot house. Or cows that fart and cause global warming. Or. . .

My post is not talking about who one votes for.

It is talking about who we chat about here and what we say about the validity of their run for the chance to let people vote for them or not.

[stray cat]

13. If they were competent and successful we should hold it against them

(sarcasm in case its missed)

[barb162]

17. Who is "WE" Kerry ran and he's rich as hell

[MaryBear]

19. Speaking in current time here.

[barb162]

20. So two years ago makes a whole lot of diff??

Though speaking in current time Pelosi and Ted Kennedy are pretty wealthy. I never see Kennedy getting dissed around here because he's got a lot of inherited wealth

[beaconess]

22. He was "grandfathered in" - he's already an institution

but anyone else coming along in the last 10 years had better take a vow of poverty if they want to survive scrutiny of the "purity trolls." (I love that description!)

Let's all get behind Ralph Nader - no one ever accused him of spending too much of his own money.

:sarcasm:

[NastyRiffraff]

21. "Purity Trolls"

Perfect description.