A news item caught my eye this afternoon which confounds me somewhat.
According to the New York Times, The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees boss, Gerald McEntee, announced the million-member union's latest batch of political ads will take the group's spending on the midterm elections to $91 million, far and away the most spending by any group this cycle.
Additionally, an analysis from the Center for Responsive Politics revealed that taken as a whole, Democrats and Democratic allied groups have raised and spent far more than their Republican counterparts -$856 million to $677 million.
The same day, the AFL-CIO, a labor group that includes AFSCME and other public-employee groups like the American Federation of Teachers, was in Nevada rallying for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. They said that Reid's victory would be key to labor's agenda. Unions are spending millions to defeat Republican Sharron Angle, more than in any race except perhaps for the Colorado Senate contest.
Then, last night, President Obama hosted a conference call for thousands of union supporters from the White House, cheering on their efforts to defeat Republicans.
Having read all that, I still come back to a fundamental question. Regardless of how much is spent on advertising, who on earth watches the ads? While I can certainly understand unions, which have been the backbone of the Democrat party for what seems like ever pouring money into the party, who else cares?
It just seems to me that folks who can't find employment, or have seen their health care plans shot to pieces, have children going to schools to be taught nothing by droves of dead-heading, union protected teachers, seeing the value of their homes deflate like a rock while the national debt climbed to more than $13 trillion dollars aren't likely to be influenced by Democrat advertising.
And what do these ads suggest? That things like stopping the administration's plan in the middle would be unconscionable because there's still more to do. But, what does that exactly mean?
It would seem, judging by performance so far, that there's still some cash and other marketable assets in the hands of the public that have yet to be taxed, fined, or otherwise glommed by the feds, and that falls short of the goal.
What's more, if the majority's lost in Congress, there's a chance that the general population might even get some money back. And, that means the redistribution of assets back to the public might even lead to government weakening in power, and we certainly don't want to see that.
So, I'll go back to my original question. Who in the world would watch any of these ads? And if they actually did, I don't think that'll help much, because anyone really listening to this drivel is too dumb to vote.
That's it for today folks.
Adios
No comments:
Post a Comment