Desparate,

My only objection to your question is your use of "aristocracy" to describe the form of government that coporate lobbyists are trying to form.  The  Aristocracy is a class of persons which is made up of members of the royalty and court in a monarchy.  It seems to me that a government who exists for the benifit of corporate interests, especially if seeks to control the general population through propoganda and lies, is Fascist.

Excellent point Jim !

I would agree that it is more fascist than anything.  I had a professor in college that was teaching an economics class that touched on a subject that I think we can see happening in today’s business climate, and it is the position where many of the business represented PAC’s are lobbying from.

It was the idea of “Corporate Communization”.  It is the idea that in an unregulated capitalist market everything gets narrowed down to a single product in that market, much like a monopoly.  Only this takes it even a step further where those single products then getting absorbed through mergers to become subsidiaries of even larger companies.  

For example, take a look at our current media climate (I know this is one of those subsidiaries).  It is scary that they are all owned by some of the largest corporations in the world.  It is scary to think that they are paying themselves to advertise their products on what is essentially their own air waves (and expensing it of course).  Not to mention, they are setting the advertising rates for our candidates running for election (or should I say “THEIR CANIDATES” running for election).  This is not saying that they can charge different rates, or not offer time based on party (I think this would be illegal, but don’t really know), but what it can do is price 3rd party candidates out of the candidacy process of getting their message out to the masses (not the electoral process).  Or by keeping 2nd tier party candidates behind in the polls because everybody knows that they cannot keep face time with the potential voting electorate if they are not plastered on the TV screen.  

Lets also look at candidates that have opted into the public financing in the primaries.  John Edwards is in a statistical dead heat in Iowa, and gaining with independents and undecided voters in NH, SC, & NV (not to mention having wider margins than Hillary & Obama in General Election Polling against top GOP Canidates), but he has gone nearly unmentioned in the last 2 weeks.  Is this because; if it truly ends up being a "HRC" and Obama primary race they are the only 2 candidates with huge war chests for the advertisers.  It is just plain scary to me that everyone else is left in the dust.

This is why we have speed up the primary process, and lumped the majority of them together.  This is why every state should be a caucus based on a 3 party minimum.  At least we could have stronger numbers on who is polarizing and who is strong in 2nd and 3rd place inside of each party (with according delegates).  It would make the national party conventions what they are supposed to be rather than what they have become.  A place where delegates from each state decide who should be the national parties nominee based on the results of the substantive state process.

Desperate:

Aw, Desperate, why can't I quit you!!!???

I would have gone away if you hadn't been ridiculous one more time.

Why are you wasting your time here?  Is it a social studies assignment? Are you applying for a "First Read internship? Are you auditioning to take Murray or Domenico's place? (Look out guys!)

It's obvious that this little forum is far beneath you, which I have apparently proved time and time again, just today.  

Your talents are needed elsewhere, not here with us cretins!  We'll tarnish you if you hang around too long and not even someone with your powers and insights is likely to help.  

You should go away before it's too late and you are trapped here repeating mediocrity after mediocrity.  I mean, you have absolutely reduced me to the point that I have no resort but sarcasm and cheap shots.

And now that my head is back in my possession after apparently being possessed by someone possessed, (thanks for handing it to me, next time try not to drop it!) where, pray tell, did I assert anywhere that you are voting for Edwards?

I did tell you to take your self-important, arrogant faux intellectualism and stuff it into a John Edwards ballot box, but that has nothing to do with who you might be voting for. Use a Romney ballot box if you want, but stuff it with said qualities nevertheless.

It's not logical to make such assertions about something I didn't say.  Your assertion about my assertion isn't credible and you temporarily misplaced your cogency.  

And where do you get that brash confidence to actually assert things about me with no knowledge whatsoever?  And the ability to research the THOUGHTS of other people?  Are they wearing 1" or 2" platforms?

On the age question:  I'm old enough to vote.  Will you be in November?

Nighty night.

thank you overland park, ks. you have stated the way millions of beat down middle class families feel.

we don't blindly follow the democrats, we just know their programs are best to help most of us try to get back on our feet. republicans just blindly follow party line no matter what the outcome.

we dont think of edwards as some kind of saviour but we do think of him as returning to his middle class roots as the son of a mill worker. i think he can still relate to us and i am not so cynical as to think that he is just saying whatever to get elected. He has a hard row to hoe but I just say: God bless him and Elizabeth.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):