🚀 go-pugleaf

"Dave Thompson" <Dave7@wdmd1x.com> wrote in message
news:3c3d2051_1@news.nwlink.com...
>
> "Robin*" <springs809@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:Ca1%7.16741$Vz3.1812307@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Curious" <nospam@newsranger.com> wrote in message
> > news:Q2Q_7.9777$cD4.19954@www.newsranger.com...
> > > How Dubya Got To Be President by Paul Street From the Feburary, 2001
of
> Z
> > > Magazine.
> > >
> > > On January 20, George W. Bush began his reign as perhaps one of the
> > meanest and
> > > certainly one of the dumbest presidents in the history of the United
> > States. He
> > > becomes the chief executive of the world's most powerful nation
despite
> a
> > > mediocre record in a series of academic institutions to which he
gained
> > > admission through inherited class privilege and family name; despite a
> > business
> > > record that would have brought him economic ruin but for family/class
> > > connections and related corporate welfare infusions; despite an
> > unimpressive and
> > > mean-spirited record in one of the nation's weakest governorships.  He
> > occupies
> > > the oval office despite his transparent discomfort with fundamentals
of
> > policy
> > > and the English language, a chronically sneering visage, a belatedly
> > publicized
> > > DUI conviction, and a political record contrary to principles and
> > objectives
> > > supported by a majority of Americans. Those principles and objectives
> > include
> > > campaign finance reform, environmental protection, tax equity, quality
> > public
> > > schools, racial justice, and the maintenance of Social Security as a
> > viable
> > > public program.
> > >
> > > How did Dubya pull it off? Well, he didn't. Bush owes his presence in
> the
> > Oval
> > > Office to a fortuitous (for him) combination of factors. The first and
> > most
> > > obvious factor was big money. In the United States, where the
escalating
> > cost of
> > > paid political advertising prices out candidates who can't raise
> fortunes
> > and
> > > prevailing legal doctrine (Buckley v. Valeo, 1976) holds that campaign
> > spending
> > > limits violate free speech rights, it is only fitting that the
> candidates
> > with
> > > the most cash should win. This happened in 9 out 10 races for federal
> > office in
> > > 2000 and the White House was no exception. Bush's record-setting
> campaign
> > > contributions ($191,617,196) and expenditures ($182,052,265) gave him
a
> > > significant money edge over Gore (who raised $132,624,544).
> >
> > Then how do we explain H. Ross Perot, with his BILLIONS of dollars, and
> > Steve Forbes, with his family's fortune behind him, going down in
> FLAMES????
>
> Organization.

To quote the origonal post, "... it is only fitting that the candidates with
the most cash should win".

This inplies Bill Gates will be a lock if he ever decides to run for public
office.

If Ross Perot gets stomped, and Steve Forbes doesn't even make it to the
primaries, then obviously money has little to with winning an election.