I bet that anyone who thinks this is some kind of media bias are already not interested in voting for “that one” anyway.
It’s easier to presume, but if you read the article in the OP you’d see the cost is far less than that. McCain could easily afford to do the same thing. Although Palin may have to skip a manicure.
Obama should publicly offer to pay for a McCain rebuttal, of equal length and placement. McCain can’t say yes, doesn’t have the time and would fuck it up if he did. And if he says no, well, there you have it.
I don’t think you understand what equal time means, or meant.
He bought an ad, not an election. (In other words what you’re saying here doesn’t resemble any fact in any way.)
How did you come to that conclusion? Perhaps you could tell me what equal time means.
Why did he buy the ad ? To watch himself perform?
I’m expecting a simple concise, ‘no matter who wins this election we need to come together as Americans’ message. He’ll thank his supporters, but this message will be more about solidifying a base across the aisle.
How is that unfair?
That’s a delicious idea! I like your flair for strategery.
I don’t have a problem with it for the reasons already mentioned: small, no-strings donations make up so much of Obama’s budget that I don’t feel like HE’S buying the election, or that special interest groups are buying it for him.
I’ll admit, when I first heard it, I though it was a bit ballsy, and wondered if anyone had had the chutzpah to try such a thing before. A little Googling revealed it’s nearly SOP, so it doesn’t feel either as daring or as risky as I first thought.
"the campaign decided to plunk down between $3 and $5 million to buy half-hour blocks of time at 8 p.m. tonight on NBC, CBS, FOX, Univision, BET, MSNBC and TV One for delivery of his final argument to the voters. "
So is that between 3 and 5 million dollars for each network, or total? If it’s total that’s a big bargain isn’t it? What’s the standard 30-second ad rate for NBC, CBS, and FOX?
If it’s $4 million each for just NBC, CBS, and FOX that’s $12 million. For all of them at $4 million each, that’s $28 million.
If he used the money to buy additional ad time for 60 commercials (30 second ads) on each of those channels, would people still be moaning about the gross unfairness of it all? Would it still be an example of “buying the election”?
I just refuse to believe that the majority of Americans are so stupid, they don’t know what an infomercial is. This is well publicized, and there’s probably going to be a disclaimer at the beginning–“The views expressed in this program don’t necessarily reflect the views of…” etc.
This doesn’t even make sense. The campaign funds are meant to fund the campaign. That is the good it’s meant to do. People didn’t donate portions of their paychecks to Obama so he could open soup kitchens with the money–they donated because they want the man to be POTUS. If he didn’t do everything possible with that money to win the election–including a lump ad buy–then he would have to answer to his supporters about that. You might have an argument about how this is wasting money, but you’re going to have to do better than this.
I find it hilarious that Republicans are complaining about someone buying an election…
Here’s the skinny, folks. That’s OUR money…the several million American citizens who’ve plunked small-dollar amounts down on Obama’s campaign because we believe he’s the best candidate running. So that means that either WE own an Obama presidency (as it should be) or nobody owns an Obama presidency (which is also good). If Obama had gotten all his money from corporate bundles, I’d worry and probably cry foul, but in essence, Obama hasn’t refused public funding. Because we’re the public, and we’re funding him.
And he can use that money any goshdarn way he wants to, as his political savvy dictates.
I just think a Republican would get more criticism for it. Sarah Palin’s wardrobe money was spent to get her elected. They’re not even her clothes.
I don’t see the big deal. No campaign rules appear to have been broken.
Obama raised the money from private donations and he’s spending it on his campaign as he chooses. The McCain campaign chose to spend RNC money on clothes for Palin — no problem. I had no objections there, either.
It seems to me as if Obama is spending his money smarter. He has a better organized ground game, more paid staffers, more phone banks, more volunteers, more signs, more ads, more ways to get his message out.
If McCain chose not to spend his money the same way, I’m not gonna say it’s unfair, and gift his campaign with millions worth of air time to make things “equal.” McCain made his choices and he’s gotta live with 'em.
Isn’t the pure fact that the man marketed himself with superior quality for the entire campaign, with very few errors, if any. That to me is enough to vote for him. He never said it, but every campaign to go against his has lost, he puts everyone elses camp in defense mode for the entire campaign. If he is that good a strategist, I trust him to run the country very well. Plus the worldlikes him.
“Equal time” is a requirement that networks offer the same amount of time to competing candidates, so as not to be biased to one side. What you’re suggesting would be an outrageous example of bias toward McCain: Obama paid about $4 million to air this ad and you’re suggesting the networks give it to McCain for free. Networks don’t offer Pepsi free airtime whenever Coke buys an ad, so this would be highly inconsistent. The ad time was available to both candidates, along with Baldwin, Barr, Nader and all the others and every other potential advertiser, in the marketplace. That fulfills any sensible version of “equal time” here.
To try to win votes. That’s not “buying an election” - unless you believe voters change their affiliation every time they see an ad. If that’s true, I’m going back to Vermont to vote 22 times for Gov. Jim Douglas and 13 times for Gaye Symington, then I’ll hit New Hampshire and vote 55 times for Jeanne Shaheen and 47 for John Sununu.
My problem with it is a simple matter of taste. This election has been going on forever. Everywhere you go, you’re exposed to it. You see and hear campaign ads every day, it’s all anyone talks about, and it just seems to be omnipresent. I’m just oversaturated, and I can’t believe I’m the only one who feels this way.
Utter nonsense. I suggested that they both should get free air time. Where’s the bias in that?
This is an extremely stupid anology. Coke users don’t give a shit if Pepsi wins the cola war. There is no stake there for the consumer.
Obviously your definition of the phrase is restrictive. How would you define “buying an election”
Your not the only one. I’m oversaturated, stimulated and agitated - but you are not questioning the importance of the race right?
Generally speaking, no and no, but every candidate has to work within and make the best of the campaign-financing system in place at the time of the election; that’s all Obama has done.
If you don’t like the campaign-financing system we’ve got, then fight for campaign-finance reform – real CFR, not some halfass band-aid like the McCain-Feingold Bill – and for making all paid political advertising illegal while requiring all broadcast stations to provide equal free time to all candidates; even if all that takes a constitutional amendment to reverse Buckley v. Valeo and definitively declare that for constitutional purposes, money is not protected as “speech.”
You will support all of the above unreservedly, I presume? 
I’d define it as using your own money, or your family’s money, to fund your campaign, instead of money from donors, especially small donations from people who can’t reasonably expect preferential access to the candidate because of it. “Buying the election” suggests that you’re doing something the other guy couldn’t because of your personal financial standing, not what you’ve raised via fundraising efforts during the campaign.
He lost to Bobby Rush in 2000, or were you talking about this election and pointing out the painfully obvious.
I think it would be very difficult to throw a literal blanket over an airwave.