[Michael Romanos]

I love Matt C's response. Yes TV ratings are high because of the race for the presidency and the race issue and the exposing of would-be (still could-be I suppose) Presidents like Clinton. And without spending a cent, tv would still take up the mantle and give the candidates plenty of publicity. The push for the president of the USA is at the call of the richest and the most heavily funded candidate, election after election almost. So its money that talks not what the candidate says. Let's say that each candidate could not spend more than $2 million per campaign which also includes separate assistance by other people or organisations. Would that keep the candidates more honest and the whole exercise more in keeping with a level playing field and rid the country of wasted money which would be better spent on the poor and the needy. Its gotten out of hand - a bit like the interpretation of the right to carry and use guns.
We have a very good American basketballer in NZ from Los Angeles and he has come here to play but mostly to escape gang violence back at home. Over just the last few months five of his friends and relations have been gunned down and killed for no apparant reason. He says where formerly thugs would use fists, knives and bats they now use guns. It's getting worse not better. Who is the most anti gun among the three left in the race for the presidency? I know the answer. 11,300 people died from being guinned down in the USA over a recent 12 month period. In Britain in the same period - 70. USA has 4.5 times the population of Britain - 70 x 4.5 = 315. 11,300 gunned down compared with 315. Why??????
Sorry for raging.