> > The media by and of the 1% will do anything to keep the discussion off
> > of economic issues.
> Which candidate benefits the most from this?
Obviously the candidate who most wants the discussion off of economic
issues and is, therefore, giving the most speeches before that are
[ostensibly] non economic, i.e., the terrorist gay NRA abortion
Christian coalition culture warriors.
And even when on economic issues, it's always penny wise/pound
foolish, i.e., 2,000 billion on Iraqi quagmires is OK while 0.5
billion on Solandra is not OK.
Let's face it: All Obama needs to do is to pop The Question:
"Does free speech precede each and every free trade?"
and not only would the GOP implode, it would take most culture wars
with it.
It would certainly displace the culture wars out of the political
debate.
Politics is always and, according to Paine, should only be about
economic issues.
Anyone who tells you otherwise is trying to swindle the public, either
for his employer or for himself.
Anyone shill the media who is constantly gush hyping non economic
issues or events of minor economic importance ("9/11 changed
EEEEEVEERYthing") pretending that 0.0001% money isn't ultimately
behind his gush hyping is being paid _money_ by the 0.0001% to swindle
the public.
As long as they can keep the political debate off of disparity of
wealth and average mean income being over $65/hr they can disable
popular government and rip you blind.
The swindle ain't any more sophisticated than that folks.
Bret Cahill