A Wonderful Loss

By Bearse Campaign Supporters

 

The naysayers and cynics are wrong. If a candidate loses, they write him off and dismiss his ideas. But what if the ideas are right? Then both the candidate and the voting majority are losers, and the naysayers have misled the public, again.

 

The campaign of Peter Bearse for Congress is a case in point. But for some rare exceptions, the media ignored his campaign from the outset and throughout. They knew from FEC reporting that the campaign wasn’t raising nearly enough money to meet the million dollar threshold they set for a candidate to be “viable.” Media customers (readers or viewers) should know that they are being played for fools. If, like sheep, they follow media judgments on whether a candidate should be taken seriously, then they apparently believe that the media are objective judges, or else they should admit that their votes can be bought. How “objective” are editors on the money issue when they’re giving out endorsements with one hand and taking money for political advertising with the other?

 

Media mavens may say that the Bearse campaign failed to fly like a lead balloon. Yet, the outsider looking in is not in a good position to pass judgment on a campaign that is people- rather than big money-based. Supporters of Peter Bearse for Congress describe the result of their efforts as a “wonderful loss.” Why wonderful? -- because we accomplished a lot with a little.

 

We fulfilled our goals to:

 

> Test just how far a people-based politics could take a candidate for Congress;

 

> See how receptive voters would be to an independent candidacy;

 

> Define “Change Congress” as the #1 issue affecting the economy and all others;

 

>Focus attention on the corruption of Congress by big money -- on the need to make the House of Representatives a people’s House, not just one part of the best Congress money can buy;

 

> Show how the considerable resources each Member of Congress (MoC) has at his or her disposal (over $1.5 million) can be deployed to serve constituents better by demonstrating a “higher level of service”; and

 

> Get people to question the value of incumbency.

 

The party nominees were like mirror images. One was an incumbent; the other, a former incumbent. Each is a go-along/get along party animal playing party games that are adverse to change and not serving constituents well.

 

Most voters among the thousands we met were surprisingly receptive to an independent candidacy. Most acknowledged the need to reform Congress. Many revealed needs for help that were not being met. Most either did not know who their MoC was or had an indifferent or unfavorable attitude towards the incumbent. Many, especially, felt the need for help in dealing with financial issues and economic problems.

 

But the choice came down, as it too often does to voters, as a choice between “the lesser of two evils.” Neither of the party nominees would serve to:

 

* Fight the influence of big money in the Congress;

* Fight to reform the way Congress does (usually, does not do) the people's business;

* Take a strategic or knowledgeable approach to solving our economic and financial problems;

* Bring accountability to a Congress whose operations are practically unaccountable, or

* Provide a higher level of service to constituents.

 

And so the choice came down, as in 2006, to the influence of a single word, NO – No to Bush – and so to the candidate whose neck was not adorned by the Bush albatross.

 

So all we can say to voters now is “Good luck” over the next two years. Since our odds improve if we work together, call Peter at 382-8079 if you need help or have suggestions as to how, together, we can work to improve things. And stay tuned.