Call out to Meg Whitman

[airdata]

You do realize that you'd probably get more votes if you spent $100,000,000 to feed the hungry instead of on ridiculous tv and radio advertisements, right?

Anybody else sickened by this? We're in a recession, depression... whatever you want to call it... But Meg Whitman has $100,000,000 to waste on tv ads.

 

[jman19]

Meg Whitman's fervor to buy the governor's seat in Cali is exactly why she shouldn't be elected to office.

 

[Thump553]

I assume you are getting bombarded with TV ads? Linda McMahon is doing the same thing in CT-she is spending over $50,000,000 of her own money in this tiny state. I know your pain-and frustration.

 

[BlahBlahYouToo]

bloomberg did the same thing in nyc.
not mad... their money, free to spend it in any way they want.

 

[Siddhartha]

People complain about how much public servants are paid. They complain about how much political candidates have to rely on donations to run their compaigns. They complain when the rich use their personal resources to run for office and win. They would never vote for the public finance of political campaigns.

What do you guys want a monarchy?

 

[werepossum]

LOL Nothing quite so strident as a liberal complaining about someone spending her own money.

 

[Linflas]

People complain about how much public servants are paid. They complain about how much political candidates have to rely on donations to run their compaigns. They complain when the rich use their personal resources to run for office and win. They would never vote for the public finance of political campaigns.

What do you guys want a monarchy?

Amazing isn't it? Somehow it is ok if they spend $50,000,000 of someone else's money to get elected but horrid if they believe in themselves enough to through their own money on the line.

 

[her209]

People complain about how much public servants are paid. They complain about how much political candidates have to rely on donations to run their compaigns. They complain when the rich use their personal resources to run for office and win. They would never vote for the public finance of political campaigns.

What do you guys want a monarchy?

You should have seen the comments on the 30-minute Obama campaign "ad".



EDIT: Here is the thread.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=232177

 

[woolfe9999]

I'm not concerned about Whitman spending her own money. Liberals should be less concerned about that than candidates who receive lots of special interest money. I support public financing of campaigns. However, short of that, I'd rather a candidate spend his or her own money than someone elses, because they tend to be beholden to whoever it is whose money they spend.

The relentless bombardment of ads is annoying in and of itself, but that is not the same issue as whose money is paying for them. It would be no more or less annoying if it came from donor money, right?

- wolf

 

[Skitzer]

You do realize that you'd probably get more votes if you spent $100,000,000 to feed the hungry instead of on ridiculous tv and radio advertisements, right?

Anybody else sickened by this? We're in a recession, depression... whatever you want to call it... But Meg Whitman has $100,000,000 to waste on tv ads.

The 100,000,000 is not wasted ..... it is being spent. People are hopefully spending this money and it is getting out into the economy.
I say let them throw their money away ............ besides, why do you care? You live in Texas right? How does this affect you?

 

[hal2kilo]

You do realize that you'd probably get more votes if you spent $100,000,000 to feed the hungry instead of on ridiculous tv and radio advertisements, right?

Anybody else sickened by this? We're in a recession, depression... whatever you want to call it... But Meg Whitman has $100,000,000 to waste on tv ads.

The ego and hubris of your typical american CEO knows no bounds.

 

[bfdd]

Amazing isn't it? Somehow it is ok if they spend $50,000,000 of someone else's money to get elected but horrid if they believe in themselves enough to through their own money on the line.

Seriously. I would much rather have politicians use their OWN money to run their campaign. Much more "honorable" than taking donations.

 

[manimal]

Its a double edged sword. The process of raising money and being indebted to the large cap donors is something thats wrong with the process. Whats right is the small cap donations. If you look at the huge increase in the 5 dollar or less donation percentages of say Obama's campaign then you could see how widespread his support was.

I do not have a problem with whitman spending her own money on her campaign. What I have a problem with is bs that she and fiorina are pushing.... doesnt matter where the money comes from in this case.

 

[Moonbeam]

I think the answer to money in politics is very simple. For every dime of money spent by a candidate to promote his or her own message they should have to provide an equal amount to the candidate of their primary opponent and half as much to the next contending party. That money and that money alone would not have to be similarly shared.

In this way some measure of redress to the fact that elections are won by the candidate who can deliver the best lie to the most people for the most number of times and thus brainwash the most people would be tempered because all the brainwashing could be countered on an equal basis. In a field of such garbage and shit a person with real character might shine forth with some message folk really think might be of benefit. It might at least insure that rubbish is equally distributed among the parties.

As long as money determines who wins, the best brainwashing worthless unprincipled slime will win.

Anybody who runs with their own money is already likely to have the moneyed mind set and be a disaster for the interests of ordinary people.

This is why, we would be better served, in my opinion, picking our politicians from the telephone book at random.

 

[Moonbeam]

This 100 million dollar idiot never used to vote she had so little respect for politics. Now she wants to buy a new dress and the governor's mansion. Do you think she's spending that 100 million to serve you or to have sex with herself.

 

[jman19]

LOL Nothing quite so strident as a liberal complaining about someone spending her own money.

Wow way to completely simplify the issue beyond belief... another intellectually dishonest post by werepossum - shocking!

 

[Fear No Evil]

Didn't Obama spend like 10 trillion dollars to get elected?

 

[jman19]

Didn't Obama spend like 10 trillion dollars to get elected?

Of his personal wealth? Really? And what does Obama have to do with Meg Whitman other than your typical deflection nonsense?

 

[Thump553]

bloomberg did the same thing in nyc.
not mad... their money, free to spend it in any way they want.

Good point-just googled it-according the NY Daily News (questionable authority in my view) Bloomberg spent $102M to win his third term as mayor-or $175 per vote.

Hey I love TV ads just as much as the next guy, but wouldn't it be more efficient and socially useful for these egomaniacs just to mail us all out checks?

Also I can't imagine why anyone even wants to be governor of CA. After all, if even Ahrnold couldn't get those squabbling fools to accomplish anything what hope is there for a mere mortal?

 

[Moonbeam]

Good point-just googled it-according the NY Daily News (questionable authority in my view) Bloomberg spent $102M to win his third term as mayor-or $175 per vote.

Hey I love TV ads just as much as the next guy, but wouldn't it be more efficient and socially useful for these egomaniacs just to mail us all out checks?

Also I can't imagine why anyone even wants to be governor of CA. After all, if even Ahrnold couldn't get those squabbling fools to accomplish anything what hope is there for a mere mortal?

Moonbeam is no mere mortal.

 

[woolfe9999]

Didn't Obama spend like 10 trillion dollars to get elected?

17 posts to bring Obama into a thread having nothing to do with him? You're off your game. Usually you're in by post 5 at latest.

- wolf

 

[werepossum]

17 posts to bring Obama into a thread having nothing to do with him? You're off your game. Usually you're in by post 5 at latest.

- wolf

Obama is perfectly germane to this issue. If it is sickening that Whitman spends $100,000 during a recession (which BTW is officially over LOL), if this indicates her "fervor" to "buy" the office, then it is certainly germane to point out that Obama spent far, far more in his "fervor" to "buy" the office. The only way that has nothing to do with the issue is if you somehow feel that it's sickening to spend one's own money but perfect okay to spend others' money. Although come to think of it, that viewpoint probably encompasses the entire Democrat Party . . .

 

[woolfe9999]

Obama is perfectly germane to this issue. If it is sickening that Whitman spends $100,000 during a recession (which BTW is officially over LOL), if this indicates her "fervor" to "buy" the office, then it is certainly germane to point out that Obama spent far, far more in his "fervor" to "buy" the office. The only way that has nothing to do with the issue is if you somehow feel that it's sickening to spend one's own money but perfect okay to spend others' money. Although come to think of it, that viewpoint probably encompasses the entire Democrat Party . . .

Er, I suggest you actually read my first post in this thread. Oops.

- wolf

 

[werepossum]

Er, I suggest you actually read my first post in this thread. Oops.

- wolf

LOL I stand corrected. Almost the entire Democrat Party.

BTW I agree entirely with your first post; much as I despise Bloomberg I have no problem with him spending part of his own fortune to get elected. But my point remains - everything that can be said about Whitman's spending MUST be said about Obama's spending except that he was spending others' money. Ergo Obama is entirely germane unless one's problem is specifically that it IS Whitman's money.

 

[woolfe9999]

LOL I stand corrected. Almost the entire Democrat Party.

BTW I agree entirely with your first post; much as I despise Bloomberg I have no problem with him spending part of his own fortune to get elected. But my point remains - everything that can be said about Whitman's spending MUST be said about Obama's spending except that he was spending others' money. Ergo Obama is entirely germane unless one's problem is specifically that it IS Whitman's money.

These things can be said about anyone's spending. Campaign spending should not be a partisan issue. It's a problem with all politicians, both parties, all campaigns, to varying degrees. TBH, if someone else besides FNE had made the point I probably wouldn't have replied, but FNE seems to find some way of bringing Obama into just about every thread. FNE is bringing up Obama for partisan reasons, likely because he ASSUMES that Whitman is only being criticized for this because she is a republican. Actually, the real source of the criticism is that many Californians are sick of this particular ad campaign because you can't listen to the radio for more than 5 minutes without hearing a new ad. And people are then incorrectly trying to frame the issue as her wealth which as I pointed out is not the real problem.

- wolf