Applewood's Blog

I find this election to be the most interesting of all the elections that I've seen in my 59 years.  It has truly been enjoyable to see so many debates and here so many interesting perspectives.

On the other hand this election has brought with it some troubling aspects that in my view have been rubbed into the faces of the voters.  It has never been so obvious that elections can be bought.

One case on point is the competition between Romney and Huckabee.  For months now Huckabee has bee neck and neck with Romney in the national polls.  His performance in the debates has brought him much attention without him having to have much money. 

Now he's virtually out of money.

Romney is spending 7 figures of his own money to canvas the nation with TV spots.  It's nice that he has earned this money, but it seems somehow unethical for one candidate to be restricted in how he can obtain funding whilst another (Romney) can be unrestricted in how much of his own personal wealth he can use.  The playing field is hardly equal. 

Further, now that he is ot of money, the media has relegated Huckabee to the "also ran" status even though is polling numbers still show him very much in the race.  Money equals electability?  When the voters indicate that a candidate is viable the media should respond by giving the voters more exposure to him or her.  Money should not define electability, nor should it dictate which candidate gets aire time.  

I ask you, where would Huckabee be in the polls if he and Romney were retstricted to the same funding rules?  It appears to me, that buying an election is not only legal, it's being encouraged, and all of this without regard to the voters.