Wow

 

 

 

WASHINGTON (CNN) — A wide-open presidential race and a willingness by candidates, interest groups, unions and corporations to buy TV time will lead to historic spending for political and issue-advocacy advertising in the 2008 election cycle, an analysis shows.

 

The cost to try to influence the 2008 election could exceed $3 billion, according to TNS Media Intelligence/Campaign Media Analysis Group, CNN's consultant on political television advertising.

 

This is nearly twice as much than what was spent in 2004 when political and issue-advocacy television advertising rang in at $1.7 billion. In 2006, $2.3 billion was spent on political and issue-advocacy TV commercials.

 

More at link. Worth it

 

 

 

Less than 2 days of the Iraq war = No Presidential Candidate has to raise a cent of private dollars.

Less than 2 days of the Iraq war = No Presidential Candidate has to raise a cent of private dollars.

 

 

Less than 2 days of the Iraq war = No Presidential Candidate has to raise a cent of private dollars.

 

If not corporate money, what would the candidates stuff up their bums?

If not corporate money, what would the candidates stuff up their bums?

Paging Senator Craig...

Forgot a few 0s there, Tex.

 

Eww..., Balta.

There will never be a middle class or lower President with this system in place.

There will never be a middle class or lower President with this system in place.

 

well, except for the fact that Reagan and Clinton were pretty poor when they started their lives.

well, except for the fact that Reagan and Clinton were pretty poor when they started their lives.

 

Were they poor when they ran for President?

Were they poor when they ran for President?

 

No, but what's a 'middle class President'? (I don't think Clinton had a ton of money when he ran for Prez., though.)

 

Is it someone that came from the middle class or who remained in the middle class? How would you remain in the middle class and still be an effective President? How would you remain in a small income range and be a politician and win a Governor's chair and win a Senate seat? Hell, by taking those jobs you automatically lose a middle class "slotting," since you're making money now.

 

Please define your terms.

No, but what's a 'middle class President'? (I don't think Clinton had a ton of money when he ran for Prez., though.)

 

Is it someone that came from the middle class or who remained in the middle class? How would you remain in the middle class and still be an effective President? How would you remain in a small income range and be a politician and win a Governor's chair and win a Senate seat? Hell, by taking those jobs you automatically lose a middle class "slotting," since you're making money now.

 

Please define your terms.

 

Nevermind... you were right. argue on.

Nevermind... you were right. argue on.

 

I'm sorry that you don't like being questioned. It's a fair Q -- what is a middle class President? Are you arguing that, say, a trucker should be President? An accountant? A man who runs a mom-and-pop shop? Your barber?

 

Presidents are, and should be, people who take on higher end positions in society. Some of them are born into them and some of them work their way up. Accordingly, there's a lot of money on the high end and so it's not possible to be a "middle class President" if you expect a President to be making 50,000 a year. Hell, it's not likely that they'll make less than 100,000, from their government job alone as Governor or Senator, either of which is a must for a President.

 

So are Clinton and Reagan middle class Presidents? Was anybody?

 

I think so. In those two cases, even. But if you don't want to "argue on," sorry to hear it. I forgot that discourse in this filibuster is limited to ad hominem political attacks and wholesale derisions of entire political parties and the people within.

Edited October 16, 200718 yr by Gregory Pratt

I'm sorry that you don't like being questioned. It's a fair Q -- what is a middle class President? Are you arguing that, say, a trucker should be President? An accountant? A man who runs a mom-and-pop shop? Your barber?

 

Presidents are, and should be, people who take on higher end positions in society. Some of them are born into them and some of them work their way up. Accordingly, there's a lot of money on the high end and so it's not possible to be a "middle class President" if you expect a President to be making 50,000 a year. Hell, it's not likely that they'll make less than 100,000, from their government job alone as Governor or Senator, either of which is a must for a President.

 

So are Clinton and Reagan middle class Presidents? Was anybody?

 

I think so. In those two cases, even. But if you don't want to "argue on," sorry to hear it. I forgot that discourse in this filibuster is limited to ad hominem political attacks and wholesale derisions of entire political parties and the people within.

 

He said 'You were right." What more do you need?

 

I apologize for trying to have a conversation instead of an argument.

 

I'm glad I was right, though.

Edited October 16, 200718 yr by Gregory Pratt

Wasn't Carter middle-class?

 

 

I apologize for trying to have a conversation instead of an argument.

 

I'm glad I was right, though.

 

Yeah, you wanted a "conversation". That's pretty funny actually. It would be even funnier if you actually believed it. To be honest, I don't feel like wasting my time with a circular logic arguement with you today. As a matter of a fact I will just outline the arguement, and you can fill in the blanks if you really feel the need.

 

Me-Opinion based on my interpretation of history

 

GP-hyperbole, 20 questions

 

Me-answers ad nausem

 

GP-nitpicks at answers, completely ignoring mainpoint

 

Me-replys to splitting hairs, by trying to bring back the main point.

 

GP-Ignores mainpoint, going back to parsing words.

 

Me-Tries again to explain mainpoint

 

GP-more hyperbole, more questions

 

Me-gives up and walks away from a pointless arguement.

 

Now see how much time I just saved us?

 

Wasn't Carter middle-class?

 

He's from Georgia. He must live in a mobile home and 15 cars on blocks in his yard.

Wasn't Carter middle-class?

 

He had a pretty successful agriculture business. IIRC

 

It frightens me but I see Pratt's point.

 

Both seem to believe we'll never pluck someone from middleclassville and elect them President. It seems that SS is pointing to the money to run a campaign and Pratt is pointing out that the positions we believe are valuable (even necessary) would carry the successful candidate past middle class.

 

I think it could be a very interesting discussion on the levels of economic success a candidate should have achieved in their life and the kinds of middle class professions that could qualify someone for the Presidency.

 

I'm wondering if a Scientist or Professor could build the following necessary.

Yeah, you wanted a "conversation". That's pretty funny actually. It would be even funnier if you actually believed it. To be honest, I don't feel like wasting my time with a circular logic arguement with you today. As a matter of a fact I will just outline the arguement, and you can fill in the blanks if you really feel the need.

 

Me-Opinion based on my interpretation of history

 

GP-hyperbole, 20 questions

 

Me-answers ad nausem

 

GP-nitpicks at answers, completely ignoring mainpoint

 

Me-replys to splitting hairs, by trying to bring back the main point.

 

GP-Ignores mainpoint, going back to parsing words.

 

Me-Tries again to explain mainpoint

 

GP-more hyperbole, more questions

 

Me-gives up and walks away from a pointless arguement.

 

Now see how much time I just saved us?

 

I already said I'm happy to be right. What more do you want from me?

 

<_>

He had a pretty successful agriculture business. IIRC

 

It frightens me but I see Pratt's point.

 

Both seem to believe we'll never pluck someone from middleclassville and elect them President. It seems that SS is pointing to the money to run a campaign and Pratt is pointing out that the positions we believe are valuable (even necessary) would carry the successful candidate past middle class.

 

I think it could be a very interesting discussion on the levels of economic success a candidate should have achieved in their life and the kinds of middle class professions that could qualify someone for the Presidency.

 

I'm wondering if a Scientist or Professor could build the following necessary.

 

My biggest question is, Do you have to remain in the middle class to be considered a part of the middle class? I mean, the easy answer is, "Yes." It's not like you, say, fall out of the upper class and people still refer to you as upper class because of who you used to be, but I think it's different with someone like Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan who grew up with dumps for fathers and no money at all in rural parts of the country with no external advantages in life.

My biggest question is, Do you have to remain in the middle class to be considered a part of the middle class? I mean, the easy answer is, "Yes." It's not like you, say, fall out of the upper class and people still refer to you as upper class because of who you used to be, but I think it's different with someone like Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan who grew up with dumps for fathers and no money at all in rural parts of the country with no external advantages in life.

 

What defines someone as "middle class"?

 

Income? Values? Birthright? Childhood? Early jobs? Perhaps we need an operational definition of "middle class" if this discussion is to go anywhere valuable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_middle_class has a nice start.

Middle class persons commonly have a comfortable standard of living, significant economic security, considerable work autonomy and rely on their expertise to sustain themselves.^[6]

 

I was looking forward to SS developing his comment. I think it says a lot about America and he has some great ideas on campaign financing. Possible he can be lured back into a conversation.

I try to avoid "luring" people over the Internet...

 

don't want to be caught up in no funny business!

What defines someone as "middle class"?

 

Income? Values? Birthright? Childhood? Early jobs? Perhaps we need an operational definition of "middle class" if this discussion is to go anywhere valuable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_middle_class has a nice start.

For an example of how it matters, take John Edwards...who grew up in a decidedly middle class family but was able to go to college and become a highly successful attorney before entering politics. He now gets criticized for advocating anti-poverty programs because he's still rich and hasn't given up everything he owns to help the poor, but he also is, as we've heard many times, the son of a mill worker.

he's still rich and hasn't given up everything he owns to help the poor

 

 

He charges like $50,000 per appearance to talk about poverty

 

 

For an example of how it matters, take John Edwards...who grew up in a decidedly middle class family but was able to go to college and become a highly successful attorney before entering politics. He now gets criticized for advocating anti-poverty programs because he's still rich and hasn't given up everything he owns to help the poor, but he also is, as we've heard many times, the son of a mill worker.

 

Well when your position is that you have to live a morally pure life to be able to say that other should live a morally pure life, I guess it makes sense that the same sort of standards are also going to be applied when you speak out about wealth. The left reeks of hypocrasy for taking delight in the downfalls of people like Larry Craig and Mark Foley, while living the same double standards when it comes to their pet issues such as the enviornment and wealth. For both parties and it is "Do as I say, and not as I do", and it would be nice if ANYONE could look past the letters behind their favorite party, and actually start looking for the two faces in front of the microphone. John Edwards might be the biggest hypocrite on the campaign trail today, and that is saying something. Don't worry if you don't like his morals, he's got others!