I heard this on the radio this morning, and it kind of ticked me off.

[AndyA]

The conversation was about politicians making campaign promises and not keeping them, saying one thing but then voting another, and generally being able to get away with the things they do.

They mentioned that George Bush makes speeches about things that have been total failures in his administration, yet he presents them as successes, and people applaud him for it.

One of the commentators said that this happens because the American people do not hold their elected representatives accountable for their actions. OK, great. Let's take a look at this.

Candidate A promises X, Y, and Z while running. That sounds good, so people vote for Candidate A and they are placed in office. Later, instead of supporting X, Y, and Z, Candidate A reverses course and supports their opposite. What can the people do about it at this point?

Vote them out? Right. In many areas, there is no one else to run against Candidate A. For instance, here in Oklahoma we're going to get stuck with John Sullivan again because no one with any potential at all will even run against him. So where are the options?

You can write and phone them and complain that they aren't keeping their promises, but your message likely goes straight into the trash.

There is no way to hold these people accountable in today's circumstances unless things change.

I just got a bit ticked that the commentators made it sound like this was such a simple thing to resolve, when in fact it is not. And this is another reason why we need to remove private money from campaigns and make them publicly financed. That way, we have a much better chance of getting rid of those who don't keep their promises.

Like Bush. And Cheney. And Inhofe. And Sullivan. And about 70 percent of those currently in office who talk a good talk, but won't walk the walk when the time comes.

:rant:

[jgraz]

1. Let me guess -- this was on a news show

The kind of show that, in other countries, actually informs the public of shit like this, instead of just arrogantly complaining about it after the fact.

[AndyA]

2. Yep - I think it was NPR, but I'm not sure.

Even NPR these days seems to be a bit too right for me...

[mike_c]

3. more often than not the party faithful keep the lying SOBs in office...

...simply to avoid risking their seats-- a response that makes NO sense because their occupancy of those seats is itself wasting them.

[VP505]

4. That is one of the

reasons I whole heartedly support "TERM LIMITS".

[jobycom]

5. I've got a bit of a different take.

The reason no one runs against Sullivan (or whomever) is because they don't believe there is a realistic chance to beat him. The reason it takes a ton of money to change someone's mind is because it takes a ton of money just to get people's attention, just to get the message out. And that's because people don't pay attention.

Publicly financing campaigns won't fix a single root cause, and banning private moneys would make it worse. Candidates would have less money to campaign against entrenched demagogues and overcome the media's promotion of the Republicans, therefore less chance to win. It's a Republican dream.

The only way to make thinks change are to get people more aware of what's happening. You can do that by screaming louder (which is what we do here) or just waiting long enough for the Republicans to screw things up so badly that every American becomes aware of their failures when they buy gas or groceries, or don't get a raise, etc. Until then, you campaign hard and honest, and hope they hear. Sometimes they do.

So I do blame the American voters for being complacent, for not caring enough. Public financing won't change that. I know the spiel about corporate money corrupting and how candidates who don't have the money can't be heard. That's all true. But I don't think that's the root of the problem. If Americans paid as much attention to politics as they should, neither of those problems would be a problem, and if we fixed both of those problems without making Americans care, the problems wouldn't really be fixed. People with money would find new ways to manipulate voters.

Just my thoughts. Don't hate me for them. :)

[Coyote_Bandit]

6. My personal criteria in selecting a candidate

is all about money. I want to know how he made his personal fortune (or how he supports himself) and how he has used that fortune. I want to know how he intends to fund the public treasury and how he intends to use the money. And I want to know who has financed his campaign efforts.

This tells me most of what I need to know. It informs me of his loyalties, his priorities, his work ethic and his integrity. A man who will cut corners or exploit someone in his business will continue to do so in public life. It only takes one lie to make a liar. And past conduct is the most reliable predictor of future behavior.

Unfortunately it is often difficult to obtain good information on such matters. Candidates prefer to focus on campaign themes and images. Reporters often are little more than compliant enablers. And voters? Well, they tend to be kind of stupid. They forget that candidate statements are expedient and fabricated to produce votes. Voters actually believe the schmucks. Voters seem to think that a verbal statement of a future intention trumps a candidates past behavior. Voters forget that zebras don't change their stripes.

Those policy statements from candidates of their future intentions might be useful in distinguishing between two competing candidates who have passed the money test. Until such an occasion arises, issues are secondary.