According to a new poll by Reuters seventy-five percent of Americans feel there is too much money in politics, and only 25 percent feel there is an intrinsic right to unfettered election spending. Seventy-six percent feel that the amount of money in elections has given more influence than other Americans. Now imagine two candidates named Obama and Romney who are about to embark on what’s expected to be the most costly presidential campaign in the history of our country, while Americans continue to struggle with high unemployment and astronomical cost of living rates. Spending billions in those circumstances if you’re a politician?: DUMB. Spending it on negative campaign ads?: STUPID. Spending it if you’re a wealthy businessman who comes from money and is already being attacked by your “poor little harvard graduate” opponent who wants to induct you into the 1% club while the majority of impoverished American’s watch?: GUARANTEED LOSS IN ELECTION 2012.
Assuming that Mitt Romney goes on to win the republican nomination, I have one piece of advice for him that, in my humble opinion, could not only win him the election, but also set a new precedent for the way politicians get elected in the United States; simply donate 100% of the money allocated for negative campaign ads to a worthwhile charity. Then, use the remainder of the funds to run campaign ads informing us of why he’d the better choice for President of The United States of America.
For Romney, this proposition has so many positive angels it’s incredible that none of his over paid campaign advisers have thought of it. For starters, it would really separate Romney from the “silver spoons/riding daddy’s coattails” rhetoric that we are already hearing from team Obama. The democrats started the ‘occupy’ movement months ago in preparation for this very face off: Obama the poor little underdog vs. Children’s Miracle Network or March of Dimes or St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital or some other great cause first, Romney would be putting Obama in a no win position, because even if Obama were to reciprocate at that stage, it would be obvious that he was just doing it to save face with the public. Third, the citizens already know what Barack Obama has done to the United States; we don’t need to hear it over and over again on the television to be reminded so while everyone rolls their eyes, hisses venom and throws rotten tomatoes toward the screen when Obama’s negative campaign ad’s start airing, we would be pleased to see messages from our heroic philanthropist candidate who cares about people, especially sick children, telling us why we should vote for him based on valid reasons, not on why Obama is such a lousy president. (again, we already know why, trust me). Fourth, Americans are currently struggling with economic recession/depression. They can’t give as much as they’d like, so having Romney step up, wins more hearts and minds than any “obama sucks” commercial ever could. I could go on and on with the positives for Romney, but you get the idea.RICH 1% Romney. I promise you, that message would be a much tougher sell after team Romney donates $1 billion to finding a cure for childhood cancer. Secondly, by making charitable contributions to The
This idea would carve a true hero out of Romney that the American people could feel good about electing; and we deserve a great president that does the right thing (especially after surviving the last 4 years).
He shoot’s, he score’s, he becomes the next President of The United States by setting a new president in modern politics: charitable contributions; doing what’s right; giving to helpless, innocent children suffering from debilitating diseases. If Mitt Romney would roll the dice and try this, he would succeed and in the elections of the future you would see more and more candidates opting to follow the same pathway to getting elected, and eventually, election periods would become some of the most beneficial times for charitable organizations.
Please share this article on your facebook/twitter etc if you agree. The sharing buttons are just beneath the related articles you see here:
- NBC’s Chuck Todd Perflectly Summarizes Obama and Romney Arguments in 2012 Election (themoderatevoice.com)
- Obama Has Received Least Favorable News Coverage So Far During 2012 Election Cycle (thinkprogress.org)