Is $750 million enough to win the presidency? Or could it be put to better use? President Obama spent about $750 million to win the presidency in 2008 and his staff has indicated that he'll raise about the same amount for this year's election from all of his sources. Romney will likely do the same between his own campaign and the PAC's who support him. So it does beg the question of what is the difference between them and are we reduced to the point in our democracy where only the rich (or the super-rich who support them) are able to have a serious opportunity to "serve" the people? From my limited vantage point, I'm not seeing much of a difference. All I see is a new class of elite leadership that enriches itself and perpetuates its own hold on power through that enrichment. I wonder if we could find a better way to invest that combined $1.5 billion for the nation as a whole instead of on a couple of power-hungry rich guys...
Two lawmakers say that the Secret Service needs more women? So goes the line from senators Susan Collins and Carolyn Maloney. Temporarily bypassing the idea of bipartisanship (in Washington DC?!) that these two are temporarily displaying, I have to admit that my first thought upon hearing this was "why?". I am not opposed to diversity in any workforce or group and think that it is a fine idea. However, in the aftermath of the Secret Service sex scandal (should I capital Sex Scandal?), the underlying point becomes "if there were more women there, then there wouldn't have been a sex scandal." Riiiiiight. Because women are never involved in anything dirty like a sex scandal.
Sorry, if we want to push for diversity in the Secret Service (or anywhere else, for that matter), let's not use stupid excuses to do so. Let's push for it but let's do so for the right reasons - not as a political sop based on the actions of a few stupid people.
And now, I'm tired and off to bed... I may have to review this later to be sure it's coherent since I don't feel particularly so at the moment. :-)