Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
Via Wall Street Journal. Who is going to apply some mental elbow grease to this, or pretend to, and come to the honest conclusion that Sen. Obama is looking out for the interests of voting and democracy?
Asked about whether he supports term limits, the Illinois Senator was unequivocal: “I’m generally not in favor of term limits. Nobody is term-limiting the lobbyists or the slick operators walking around the halls of Congress. I believe in one form of term limits. They’re called elections.”
Wow, how can you argue with that? He’s even upholding the dignity of the greatest legislative chamber in the world by talking like a snotty teenager, and everything.
Well, WSJ goes on to shed light on what’s going on here:
Even in 2006 midterm elections, when Republicans lost control of Congress and voters were angry with incumbents, 94% of incumbents won re-election. Normally, re-election rates in the House are closer to 96% and here’s one reason: Incumbents on average raise $2 million per election — or three times more than challengers.
So, the corrupting power structure in Washington and lifetime politicians can relax. When it comes to cleaning up the swamp of special interests inside the Washington beltway, Mr. Obama may be touting a slogan of “change you can believe in,” but he sounds more and more like a defender of the status quo.
It’s a vicious cycle, and Barack Obama knows it. Incumbents raise more money than challengers; incumbents spend more money on advertising. The price of advertising goes up. As the price of advertising goes up, the incumbent advantage over challengers is widened. As the advantage of incumbents over their challengers is widened, it makes more financial sense for those interested in legislative outcome to donate the incumbents, and so the incumbents raise more money. After a few cycles have been completed, what you have is an entrenched power structure that has a vested interest in the price of advertising staying high, and then the high cost of advertising ensures that the merry-go-round cranks over a few more cycles.
If the incumbent has been in there a long time and is highly likely to win because of it, and you like him, it seems to make a whole lot of sense. That is not true of first-term Sen. Obama, but it’s true of a lot of his friends, fer sure.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I’m surprised the WSJ article didn’t mention re-districting, which is responsible (in my mind, if no one else’s) for more incumbent victories than ALL the frickin’ ad money in the world.
- Buck | 08/11/2008 @ 16:58