People complaining about super PACs - I both understand and reject these complaints. Sure, if we had a perfect electoral system one would like to believe such ugliness would be unnecessary - but if you're going to admit that the average voter is 'informationally challenged' when it comes to seeing through to the reality of candidates and issues, and you're also going to admit that polls seem to suggest that most voters don't like it when one candidate appears to be attacking another, then you're gonna have to allow that some other means has to exist for the expressing of unpleasant 'facts'. Yeah, truth and decency gets abused to various degrees - but given the limited skills and attributes of any given electorate how else is the informational deficiency to be corrected? Gingrich is a perfect example of this [and this no doubt why he is now complaining bitterly about super PACs]: when the idiot Cain fell and Newt immediately rose this rise was based almost entirely on superficiality - namely, he argued with elitist, lefty moderators at the debates - the uber right liked that, so Newt became their man - most if not all were unaware of the freight car full of baggage the man was pulling after him - none were aware that almost every colleague of Newt's from the 90s, the people who knew him best, seemed literally unnerved by the prospect of this narcissistic nut job becoming president - etc etc - all they knew was that he seemed to have an attitude and that was good enough for them. So, without a super PAC, how do you get through to these people? Romney himself can't do it otherwise he''ll look mean spirited - if these people could be trusted to read thoughtful, in depth, unbiased journalism that might work - but of course these people have reflexively thrown their allegiance to Gingrich precisely because they don't have those reading habits. Enter the super PAC.
Now, sure, I would prefer the primary process was mostly about debates - real, full throated, probing, sound bite free debates - between a limited pallet of candidates [three at most as far as I'm concerned - but I have no idea what means you'd use to winnow out the crack pots, ego maniacs and poseurs] - but for that to work you'd need an electorate that was engaged, willing to listen closely, willing to read and analyse after action commentary, willing to change its mind based more on considered opinion than feelings - and that's just not gonna happen - you couldn't hope for an electorate like that before the dawn of television and mass media, no way you're gonna get one now - let's face it: there's a lot of 25 year old college grads out there who voted for Obama in '08 simply because Jon Stewart told them the black guy was 'cool' and Hillary was 'old' - if you can't rely on the educated for thoughtful, coherent, informed, unbiased decision making... well, if I finish that sentence I'm gonna sound like a mean spirited elitist... where's my super PAC?
