"Limitless"

In a recent interview with Forbes magazine, casino billionaire and former (sole) Gingrich donor Sheldon Adelson declared that his financial support for Romney's SuperPAC this election cycle will be "limitless." Adelson has already sunk nearly $36 million into the presidential race so far, and according to him, he's willing to spend at least three times as much, or potentially much more - he's the14th richest man in the world, worth almost $25 billion, so he could potentially spend an absurd amount of money. Just imagine a single person spending $1 billion (19% of the the total spent in 2008) or more could do to influence the presidential election; hell, with that kind of money, you could change the outcome of every election this fall.

Whether or not the five conservatives on the Supreme Court intended to--is there really any doubt at this point?--they've enabled billionaires like Adelson (and the Koch Brothers) to exert such outsized influence that the opinions and actions of regular people seem pointless. Corporations and the extremely wealthy could literally control the airwaves this summer and fall if they wanted to; there's nothing at all standing in their way aside from the depth of their (essentially bottomless) pockets. President Obama's unprecedented, election-defining $500 million in online donations in 2008 is beginning to look like chump change.

Walker did not win because of money. Period.

There is a plethora of blog posts from people on the left trying to explain why Tom Barrett lost to Scott Walker in the WI recall election on Tuesday. So far, the consensus seems to be that Barrett simply couldn't overcome Walker's huge cash advantage. The cash imbalance did make the race much harder for Barrett, and it's one of the main reasons why Walker prevailed. It's true that we can't compete as well when we're being outspent by huge 7:1 ratios. But blaming this loss solely or mostly on spending is too easy, and it does nothing to address the real problems contributing to the GOP's continued nationwide appeal.

As people firmly on the left side of the spectrum, we know that the GOP has gone off the rails. Everyone knows that the GOP has gotten quite radical of late. We're up against a Republican party that wants to radically re-shape American society in a way that most people would find appalling. They should be alienating themselves, but this and the 2010 election show that that's simply not happening. Why is that?