Early Presidential Primary Only Cost Us $1/Person and it will be money "Well Spent!"
The Randolph Leader is surely correct in scolding the Goat Hill crowd for failing to pass certain legislative needs. The editorial from today's Leader singles out the following:
One the lawmakers consider to be a success gives them a way around the prohibition against "pork" funds to be dished out at their discretion, though this may not be one they want to talk about. Meanwhile, one bill that died would have banned senators and representatives from serving more than 12 years. Another that died would have banned political action committees from transferring money among themselves, an action that is regularly used to hide the source of campaign contributions. Other bills that died would have returned power to the people, including one that would have let voters decide whether to call a convention of elected delegates who could have proposed a new state constitution.Amen! Especially the part about the Constitution! Dean Wysner, I'm still waiting to hear from you on the facts I sent you to contradict what those slick Alfa boys are telling you. While I also agree that $3,300,000.00 would go a long ways to meet the many needs we have in Alabama, the cost, if we work from a population of 4.5 million, is maybe a dollar from each citizen. And I think it might be worth it. Here's why:
- Campaigns will spend significant amounts on media buys, lodging, supplies, staffing, food and drink, ... This may be especially so in 2008 in that neither of the major parties have an incumbent or front runner. Some of that money will cycle through our economy.
- Some of the wing nuts, like those in from the 2000 primary in South Carolina such as Bob Jones, would possibly expose the intolerance often present in today's GOP to the balance of the nation. We've certainly plenty of fundamentalist pharisees such as John Giles, Roy Moore, Tom Parker, ... Bu$h zigged right to take SC from McCain in 2000 and then tried to play "compassionate conservative until he got in office. If the candidates had a few more Southern states to work in it might be more "revealing" to the balance of the nation.
- Alabama leaders would get some exposure to the national candidates. Just having a serious Democrat, not a DINO like some of our state candidates, campaign down here might move the state and local party to the left toward more Progressive ideas.
- National Democrats must learn to work better in The South. Foxes in the Henhouse argued that Lefty ideas can and will sell if presented the right way. We don't want to take your guns. We don't tax working folks to the benefit of the GOP Big Mules. We like the idea of tolerance and civil rights. We look out for our troops and veterans. We take care of the land, water, and air. We want your kids to have a chance to learn and reach their highes potential. We want you to have good and affordable health care. We will not outsource our government functions to our big business cronies. We ... Yet at times the candidates and the national party can't seem to get that message across effectively.
- Third party or darkhorse candidates could perhaps tackle a small state like ours. It might be that Alabama could discover somebody that was overlooked elsewhere.
- Alabama citizens, including our kids, could take part in a national campaign where some serious political players would perhaps share their experiences and ideas. Right now we are simply left out, this being especially so with our state's tendency to vote for the ReThuglicans. Doors might open up for some young talent to go to DC.
- Our voters might get to hear Progressivism for perhaps the first time. So many local people cringe when they hear "liberals" yet once they listen to a reasoned explanation of what that means the shift can and will occur. The Mighty Wurlitzer has been belting out the music down here for far too long.
<< Home