Greetings Steven! I'm afraid I'll have to take issue with you on a couple of points. First, I suspect that you are making a lot more out of Cheney's remarks that they deserve. It was certainly a poor choice of words, but at the same time, fewer candidates makes it a lot easier to design, print and tally ballots and a lot easier to deal with security for candidates and set up debates and all kinds of other things.
Second. If the "public airwaves" belong to "the people," then why doesn't anything else belong to "the people"? For instance, why should you be able to claim ownership of any land, or a house or a car or even the shirt on your back? If anything, the airwaves should be subject to the ordinary rules of ownership even more than some other things we claim to "own". After all, after someone purchases the equipment to broadcast, lines up content (programming), advertisers, and pays for advertising in other venues to direct eyeballs (or earwax) to their programs, there have been some rather large stacks of money changing hands. Why shouldn't someone have an ownership right to that frequency or channel? Why should we expect any more of people or companies who have put that kind of investment into something than we expect of ordinary homeowners or car owners? We would consider it outrageous if the government were to come to the person with the corner lot on some street and say, "You need to put up billboards from all the candidates on your front lawn where everyone can see them." Or "You need to place bumper stickers from all the candidates on your car." Yet, we wouldn't care if the guy with the corner lot sold billboard space or if some car or bus owner sells "space" on their vehicle. As for the "problem" of third-parties getting any traction, that's something that goes with the territory. If you came out with a new laundry detergent tomorrow, there's no way you'd immediately compete with Tide or Cheer or the others. Why? Because people don't pay much attention and stick with a known brand. Your stuff might be better, but they don't know that and aren't interested enough to find out. The difference with detergent is that you could get enough sales of a cheaper or superior product to make a pretty good living without ever denting the bigs' market share. In politics, that same showing gets you a distant third place that's off the radar screen. Lowell C. Savage It's the freedom, stupid! Gun control: tyrants' tool, fools' folly. Steven Thompson wrote: > Greetings liberty_nw! > > It's been years since I posted anything here, welcome back Frank. > > In another thread or, perhaps it also appears here, Idaho's own Frank > Reichert stated that he was under-funded in a recent North Idaho election. > The 'big two' were able to get their messages out and therefore became the > top two vote-getters in his race. I want to personally thank Frank for his > effort and commitment to running for public office. > > So, why does it cost so much to run for public office at any level? Why do > voters continue their long standing practice of hearing from and voting > for > one of two choices? > > During the Presidential election, I remember V.P. Dick Cheney being asked > about the democratic elections about to take place in Iraq. When asked > about > the countless political factions in Iraq, Cheney stated that the fewer > factions the better because the 'electoral process' is easier to > 'control'. > > Cheney's remarks should of sparked some debate over how our political > process is conducted and controlled here in America. I'm sure it's no > surprise that money has been king for some time. Our entire electoral > process has been corrupted far too long. Whenever anyone attempts to talk > about it reporters and camera crews run the other way. Why does our > so-called free media not address this issue? Follow the money, who are the > benefactors of all the massive campaign spending? > > How will our corrupt elections in America ever become open, free > elections? > The public airwaves are supposed to belong to us, 'the people'. Our > political process gives authority to the Federal Communications Commission > to regulate and license our airwaves. If our political leadership had any > balls, something, anything would be adequately debated and passed into law > giving all candidates open and free access to 'the people'. > > In 1992, I supported a concept of giving voting Americans the power of > Referendum at the National level. Nobody in the then current > administration > wanted to speak on this important issue. I believe today as I did then, a > corrupt system will never reform itself as long as it remains in power. > Voices outside our political power structure must be heard from, anything > less equals what Dick Cheney referred to as a 'controlled election'. > > Collectively, all Americans should demand from our elected representatives > and media, free and open debate of this important election reform issue. > > Independently yours, > > Steven Thompson > Former State Chairman > Reform Party of Washington > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Libnw mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > List info and subscriber options: > http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw > Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw _______________________________________________ Libnw mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] List info and subscriber options: http://immosys.com/mailman/listinfo/libnw Archives: http://immosys.com/mailman//pipermail/libnw
